Printable View
Would appreciate to read how more experienced digital nature photographers get natural colours of nature as end results.
I usually start by keeping the original as a guide for future edits but it is so easy to get carried away when editing.
Looking at the colours of tree barks, grass, sky etc is helpful but not precise.
Thought of carrying one of those colour charts for painting houses so could refer back to that when editing !!!
Thanks in advance.
Cheers: Ian Mc
Ian,
I've met at least one person (on a trip to New Zealand, actually, though the photographer wasn't a Kiwi) who swore by a white balance tool called the ExpoDisc. But I don't think that really solves the problem. At sunset, we don't want accurate color, we want warm color, and I suspect from a quick look at the ExpoDisc website that a tool like that is geared to producing neutral, i.e., product catalog type, color. Similarly, in really overcast conditions, we don't want blue color but neutral or even slightly warm color. I play with the white balance setting on my camera to get an approximation of the scene. Still, in the end, I'm sure most of us rely on memory and, even more, what looks good on the monitor. As with Velvia, the result is sometimes better than the reality.
If you want to have a good color reference you can use a Color Checker
such as Xrite or GretagMacbeth along with a gray card. Of course the "right"
color depends on the medium. That means you need to do a proper callibration
of the Monitor, Printer etc. Hope this helps.
Thanks Cliff & Ilija
Thought I'd post an out of the box from a few days ago together with my preferred edit.
Here is the ootb.
Am thinking I need to try different in camera combinations of saturation and contrast.
This image was @ Minus 1 EV.
Cheers: Ian Mc
And here is my preferred edit.
Cheers: Ian Mc
Ian,
You say the image was shot at Ev -1. What did the histogram look like? Looks like the data would be mostly to the left, whereas it would be better to keep it to the right (even though the LCD wouldn't look like the scene you saw) then darken the image in processing as desired. What white balance did you use?
For a sunrise/sunset shot like this, setting your WB to Shade will exaggerate the warmth, whereas AWB will do the opposite. Also, you mention in-camera saturation and contrast, which I'd avoid. I have both set to 0 in my camera, apply +25 Vibrance and +25 Saturation as presets in Adobe Camera Raw (which usually looks pretty nice), and go from there (sometimes as low as 0 on saturation, sometimes higher than 25, depending on the image). If you tell more about your settings and processing, and what you like or dislike about the result, someone may be able to give more help.
Thanks Cliff
As you say most of the Histogram information is on the left side.
For sunrises and sunsets I use the Daylight setting, but will try out the cloudy and shade settings.
Actually I am reasonably content with the end result of this image.
It was just used to show that in fast changing light like sunrises and sunsets it can be difficult to remember what the eyes saw.
But then again I understand we all see colours slightly differently.
Guess will just continue with what feels right.
Cheers: Ian Mc
Definitely. And particularly with silhouetted sunrises and sunsets, different interpretations (both dark and light exposures) can work, even with film, let alone digital. For great light, I still miss having Fuji's world class chemical engineers get things right for me. But you can pretty much replicate that with digital, and of course in mediocre light digital is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian McHenry
Keep in mind that whatever white balance you use in the field, as long as you are shooting RAW you can select another later if you find it works better. Mostly I end up using my "As Shot" WB, or maybe just warming it a bit, but I'll also try Auto, Cloudy, Shade, and Flash to see if something works better, or I'll even blend two different white balances. For some recent shots of albatrosses on the water, I liked a warmer WB for the mostly white birds, but a cooler rendition for the gorgeous blue water--which reproduced how I remembered the scene better than any single WB.
Ian, have you experimented with the Photo Filters adjustment layer in PS? This is a good way to apply global color adjustment to an image, and the density can be adjusted to suit the scene.
In your example there is a very limited color palette so it is pretty difficult to say what is "natural".
Thanks Cliff & Kerry
All good stuff.
Will have a play with colour adjustment filters to check effects ( also Picasa 3 effects )
Cheers: Ian Mc
While hard to do with a long lens. with shorter focal lengths you can always take an image of the palm of your hand as you always have it with you ;). Later (or before) take an image of your hand with a McBeth color chart. That way you have your own personal reference that is easy to apply anywhere and you never forget it nor do you have to spend a lot of time trying to find it in the field. Saves weight and bulk too. For long lens imaging of your hand, you can put the camera on timer, focus on some distant subject (say 30 feet away) then place your hand on the subject for the image. Also, use the palm of you hand as it's less affected by sun tanning. Also be aware that the color can change if your cold versus warm.
But if you are really after accurate colors, take a color chart and image that.
That's great Roger.
Palm of hand & colour chart sound really good.
Thanks for that.
Cheers: Ian Mc
Don't forget that it is vital to use the RGB histogram when photographing sunrises and sunsets as it is too easy to blow the RED channel.
As for true colors, I optimize the images to my taste usually creating colors a bit richer than what I saw. But then, I was always a huge fan of Velvia....
Thanks Artie
Will watch that RGB histogram.
Admit I too always had a preference of strong Fuji film colours as opposed to Kodaks more subtle renditions although my film of choice was the Fuji 400 print film.
Cheers: Ian Mc
Art,
I am also a huge fan of velvia. Recently a friend and I went out side by side testing my 1D Mark II against his 6x7 with velvia. The spatial detail of the 1D2 is about the same as the 6x7, but boy did I have to push the processing of the 1D2 images to match the colors of velvia! So much so that is is probably a safe bet to say that just about any image anyone posts from digital has saturation probably less than that of velvia. So I feel I can always say the saturation in my digital images is less than that of slide film. Sometimes people ask if "those are real colors" and I respond more real than slide film.;)
Hey Roger, That reminds me of what I used to say when I started using Velvia: "Velvia is more saturated than reality but by no further degree than Kodachrome 64 is less saturated than reality (i.e., boring).
