High ISO Avocet shot

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, with all due respect, I am aware that Robert Works for you and you are close friends but please first study the thread and some of the history. I feel like you just came to defend him, which I understand but Robert OT has made inappropriate comments on my photos in the past, this is a public forum so everyone is free to comment on the photos, however whether I see a comment on my photos worthy of response and choose to reply to it is at my discretion. I think you do the same. Re: the cast, if you read the thread I mentioned that this image was made in early morning, the main source of light in the image was not sunlight but dim ambient light reflected from the water in the pond, this light obviously has a blue spectrum, by simple laws of physics a white object will reflect the blue light and therefore look blueish. Setting the neutral point on the Avocet feathers will throw off the color balance and the image will not look natural, as pointed out by Robert Park. Subtracting blue has caused a strong yellow cast on the greens that was not there. Definition of color cast as far as I know is an unwanted or unnatural color tint which is unfaithful to the subject and the scene, in this case the first image is as close as possible to the original scene which is the way I prefer... Best and thanks for comments and participating.

Arash, yes Robert is a friend. Yes, your reply was rude. You are obviously an excellent photographer as I have said many times. And as I said clearly above, I agree that the color balance that the photographer chooses as best representing either what they saw or one that represents their vision. So we are agreeing. But you are either not reading or not understanding what I said above so I will cut and paste it here: " The fact is that the bright whites in that image are R: 240, G: 240, and B: 252. And all of the duller whites also exhibit RGB #s with the Blue substantially higher than the Greens or the Reds. I so not claim to be a technical expert but my understanding is that that represents a blue cast. In addition, I do believe as I think that Robert does also is that if you use a gray card correctly in low light that you will have whites that will not exhibit a color cast and that the resulting image will likely not look the way you saw it.

I did not post here to defend anyone. I posted because I am sure that you are incorrect as immediately above. I will always comment when I see information that I believe is incorrect. And as you know, I have commented on many of your images in the past. Lastly, you were needlessly rude to Robert who posted here to help folks learn.

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, yes Robert is a friend. Yes, your reply was rude. You are obviously an excellent photographer as I have said many times. And as I said clearly above, I agree that the color balance that the photographer chooses as best representing either what they saw or one that represents their vision. So we are agreeing. But you are either not reading or not understanding what I said above so I will cut and paste it here: " The fact is that the bright whites in that image are R: 240, G: 240, and B: 252. And all of the duller whites also exhibit RGB #s with the Blue substantially higher than the Greens or the Reds. I so not claim to be a technical expert but my understanding is that that represents a blue cast. In addition, I do believe as I think that Robert does also is that if you use a gray card correctly in low light that you will have whites that will not exhibit a color cast and that the resulting image will likely not look the way you saw it.

I did not post here to defend anyone. I posted because I am sure that you are incorrect as immediately above. I will always comment when I see information that I believe is incorrect. And as you know, I have commented on many of your images in the past. Lastly, you were needlessly rude to Robert who posted here to help folks learn.

Artie,

I don't think my reply to Robert OT was rude at all, given his intentions, on the contrary, I find his posting on my threads and photographs rude because he tried to market his workshop this time just as he was trying to market his CD in the Avocet thread in the Avian forum a while ago. I find his comments toned in a personal and "got ya" manner and find them insulting, that is my opinion-sorry that we have to disagree.

Regarding the gray card, I did use one as I indicated. My goal was to photograph the Avocet and the surrounding environment. I used the gray card to adjust for the ambient light so that the environment-which would otherwise have a strong blue/cyan cast- be depicted accurately, for example the green marshes Dan was referring to. The Avocet was not illuminated by ambient light but mostly by the reflection of the blue light from the water so it had some blue tint, call it cast if you want but it accurately represents the color at which the Avocet was seen in relation to the surroundings, I could have used the gray card to adjust for the light that was reflected from the water, but in that case the complimentary environment would have a strong cast which would make the image less pleasing and unnatural like the reworked image in this thread IMO. After all, I was the only one there and I know how the colors looked like. As such, I believe I used the gray card correctly for my purpose.

Thank you for the discussion, This will be my last thread in the ETL forum, since my information is incorrect I better not cause further confusion. I don't run workshops or sell CDs so I don't have any benefits from explaining what I do either. I will just post my photos in the Avian forum, for those who are interested to take a look.


Thanks everybody for your comments and participation-goodbye :)

[Kirk Adams]

My eye says that Robert's post is close to how I would like to see the colors....nothing less/more.

Thx for all the help in this thread, Arrash !

[Desmond Chan]

My understanding is that, usually when people check if there's a color cast in a photo, they looks for colors that they know about, colors that should be neutral in RGB, i.e., the values for R, G, and B are the same. Usually they are colors of pure white, pure grey and pure black (folks like Dan Margulis use some other colors, too) When a pure white, pure grey or pure black subject in the scene/photograph are not neutral, i.e., R=G=B, then we say there's a color cast. And most of us, if we do color correct, would seek to have the main subject have the "corrected" colors regardless of whether the rest of the photo is. Having said that, sometimes we do choose not to color correct to 100%, such as for a sunset photo, or even indoor shots under non-sunlight balanced light source. For those shots, to be absolutely color correct could look wrong to our naked eyes. I'd include this photo of Arash as one of those shots. But I'd still say it has a color cast.

[Arthur Morris]

Artie,

I don't think my reply to Robert OT was rude at all, given his intentions, on the contrary, I find his posting on my threads and photographs rude because he tried to market his workshop this time just as he was trying to market his CD in the Avocet thread in the Avian forum a while ago. I find his comments toned in a personal and "got ya" manner and find them insulting, that is my opinion-sorry that we have to disagree. Regarding the gray card, I did use one as I indicated. My goal was to photograph the Avocet and the surrounding environment. I used the gray card to adjust for the ambient light so that the environment-which would otherwise have a strong blue/cyan cast- be depicted accurately, for example the green marshes Dan was referring to. The Avocet was not illuminated by ambient light but mostly by the reflection of the blue light from the water so it had some blue tint, call it cast if you want but it accurately represents the color at which the Avocet was seen in relation to the surroundings, I could have used the gray card to adjust for the light that was reflected from the water, but in that case the complimentary environment would have a strong cast which would make the image less pleasing and unnatural like the reworked image in this thread IMO. After all, I was the only one there and I know how the colors looked like. As such, I believe I used the gray card correctly for my purpose. Thank you for the discussion, This will be my last thread in the ETL forum, since my information is incorrect I better not cause further confusion. I don't run workshops or sell CDs so I don't have any benefits from explaining what I do either. I will just post my photos in the Avian forum, for those who are interested to take a look. Thanks everybody for your comments and participation-goodbye :)

First off, when Robert mentioned his workshops he stated that he would gladly share the technique he was talking about for free:"I have a great way to set custom WB in the field that I teach in my workshops and I can share if you are interested. Robert"

And you continue to choose to put words in my mouth. For at least the third time: "I agree that the color balance that the photographer chooses as best representing either what they saw or one that represents their vision."

Here is what you wrote that struck me as rude: "I am also aware of the basics of digital photography and don't really have the time or the interest to go back and forth."

Much of the problem here has been your insistence that there is no color cast in your original post. With the Blue values higher than the Red and Green, there is a color cast. I have (too) often found that the best course of action when you are wrong is to simply state, "I understand your point. I was wrong." Here, instead, you are opting to take your ball and go home. And that is a shame because you have tons to offer here and your help to others in ETL has been tremendous. I am hoping that you re-consider.