One Reason for Improved Pics

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Dudley Hanks, Mar 13, 2011.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    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
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 13, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dudley Hanks

    Alfred Molon Guest

    But... if you shoot RAW, why does the colour temperature setting of the
    camera matter?
     
    Alfred Molon, Mar 13, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest


    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
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 13, 2011
    #3
  4. Dudley Hanks

    Robert Coe Guest

    : 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
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 14, 2011
    #4
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest


    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
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 14, 2011
    #5
  6. Dudley Hanks

    bobwilliams Guest

    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
     
    bobwilliams, Mar 14, 2011
    #6
  7. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest


    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
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 14, 2011
    #7
  8. Dudley Hanks

    Whisky-dave Guest

    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 .
     
    Whisky-dave, Mar 14, 2011
    #8
  9. Dudley Hanks

    SneakyP Guest

    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.

    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
     
    SneakyP, Mar 17, 2011
    #9

  10. Wireless transmission direct to the brain?

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

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Blind Apertures, Mar 17, 2011
    #10
  11. That's total bullshit you useless troll. I have in my possession a thick,
    hardbound, maroon book published by Kodak in the early-mid 1900's with
    every last one of their exact formulae in it. For all their films, papers,
    as well as all their developer and toner chemistries.

    You make a pretty bad troll. All your psychotic lies are obvious to those
    who no more than you ever will.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Mar 17, 2011
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.