wstotler Posted March 12, 2007 Share #1 Posted March 12, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Quick question. I've noticed that when I stop down my lenses to f/8 and beyond my photos often pick up a "burned in" golden-ish / brownish look and/or color casting. Reminds me of the "analog" color that photos from the 50s/60s/70s have. The effect is easiest to provoke in bright sunlight. My f/4.5 15mm CV has the "golden" character noticably more than the Summicron 50mm and 35mm but I can provoke the effect with those if I really stop them down. The treatment seems to be invoked by lens aperture and not by speed or ISO. I'm guessing this has more to do with the lenses than the M8 body but I'm unsure and would like confirmation. Is there a name for this golden "burned in" looking effect and can the effect be reproduced intentionally based on a "rule of thumb"? It's not always desirable but if there's a name for it and a set of conditions that reliably reproduces it (I don't always see it in my photos) I'd like to know. Thanks! Will Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 Hi wstotler, Take a look here M8 - Burned "golden" look? Lens or M8?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted March 12, 2007 Share #2 Posted March 12, 2007 Could you post an example please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstotler Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share #3 Posted March 12, 2007 Jaap--thanks for the quick response. The first image is a crop of the original, unprocessed f/16 with the 15mm CV. 160 ISO, in-camera WB set to Daylight, JPG (highest quality). The second image shows my postprocessing. In Aperture I bumped up the exposure about two stops, reduced the shadows, and adjusted the WB (based on sampling a known white found elsewhere in this photo). Here's where it gets interesting. I know that the yellowish light character is introduced with the WB adjustment, but photos at f/4.5 and f/8 in the same light with the same WB location sampled didn't come out like this--just this one where I'm shooting at f/16. That leaves me thinking it's something to do with way the lens is capturing (or not capturing) the light--even though the WB postprocessing actually "makes" the effect. I know for *sure* it has something to do with the lens (or the physics of light capture) because this scene did NOT look at all like this when I was standing there taking the photo (or the other photos, for that matter). Please ignore the spots on the photo--dirty lens with an f/16 to show all the dusty glory and no postproduction cleanup. My fly is down. Just quick samples, as requested. The "burn-in" look isn't a problem, BTW. The way this looks suits me. I'm not trying to "fix" it. As long as I understand what it is--and choose to shoot this way (or not) selectively instead of accidentally. Thoughts? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/18560-m8-burned-golden-look-lens-or-m8/?do=findComment&comment=198075'>More sharing options...
robertwright Posted March 12, 2007 Share #4 Posted March 12, 2007 I think you are seeing a "feature" the M8 wb.... here are two photos shot within seconds of each other at the same iso 160, shutter 1/250, aperture, lens 28 elmarit, etc. Probably f8. Both converted by DNG converter and opened in Aperture. No other adjustments have been done. Photoshop has that nifty "variations" menu item which no one ever used, seems they thought to build it into the M8 as well... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/18560-m8-burned-golden-look-lens-or-m8/?do=findComment&comment=198120'>More sharing options...
robertwright Posted March 12, 2007 Share #5 Posted March 12, 2007 I will say that I do notice that if I am shooting and I make two exposures, one about a half stop or so brighter to saturate the histogram, there is a noticeable difference in color balance, the brighter exposure seems bluer. These are both shot within a minute of each other, and the bluer one I opened up a half stop to move the histogram over. The yellower one is more accurate however. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/18560-m8-burned-golden-look-lens-or-m8/?do=findComment&comment=198130'>More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 12, 2007 Share #6 Posted March 12, 2007 Will, just a thought, but you are likely to hit diffraction issues using a 15mm lens at f16+ - the physical size of the aperture is very small, almost approaching a pin-hole :-). Perhaps this is causing the effect? I never go about f8 with my copy of the lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstotler Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share #7 Posted March 12, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think you are seeing a "feature" the M8 wb.... here are two photos shot within seconds of each other at the same iso 160, shutter 1/250, aperture, lens 28 elmarit, etc. Probably f8. Both converted by DNG converter and opened in Aperture. No other adjustments have been done. Photoshop has that nifty "variations" menu item which no one ever used, seems they thought to build it into the M8 as well... Robert--this is *exactly* what I am trying to describe. I really started to notice it with the CV 15. (The examples I posted were extremes to try and point out what I was seeing at small apertures.) So, if I hear you correctly, it's definately an M8 in-camera WB thing dealing with software handling of color and not lens behavior? But, it can be provoked by underexposure--and heavy underexposure like with my CV 15 at f/16 made the issue really noticable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted March 12, 2007 Share #8 Posted March 12, 2007 If anyone has the enthusiasm, the thing to do would be to take a look at the AsShotNeutral tag in the DNGs. If it is an M8 WB issue, it would probably show as a substantial difference between shots there.... Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted March 12, 2007 Share #9 Posted March 12, 2007 When you say you processed these in Aperture, which profile are you using?. Are you using the exact copy of the Nikon-D200 or have you edited the m1 & m2 to reflect the newer 1.092 FW changes. I would recommend staying with the unadjusted copy of the Nikon-D200for the moment as these newer colour values that have been updated by the 1.092 FW tend to give golden tones when used on lenses without the IR/Cut 486's and more normal colours with the IR/Cuts in place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstotler Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share #10 Posted March 12, 2007 Will, just a thought, but you are likely to hit diffraction issues using a 15mm lens at f16+ - the physical size of the aperture is very small, almost approaching a pin-hole :-). Perhaps this is causing the effect? I never go about f8 with my copy of the lens. Stunsworth--I didn't think it was a *good* idea to shoot at f/16--but I wanted to see what would happen. (Boy, did that DOF collapse on the uncropped image.) Interesting thought that diffraction (I assume here that you mean loss of sharpness because the sensor can't grab everything) could give that lighting effect. What's interesting in your comments--apart from the color "burn" look--is that I might have a pinhole camera lens and didn't know it! Off to experiment later today with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstotler Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share #11 Posted March 12, 2007 If anyone has the enthusiasm, the thing to do would be to take a look at the AsShotNeutral tag in the DNGs. If it is an M8 WB issue, it would probably show as a substantial difference between shots there.... When you say you processed these in Aperture, which profile are you using?. Are you using the exact copy of the Nikon-D200 or have you edited the m1 & m2 to reflect the newer 1.092 FW changes. I'm shooting JPGs--and I assume you're both talking about the DNG workflow? I'm waiting for native DNG support in Aperture because the workflow for Aperture/DNG has a complexity I'd prefer not to deal with at the moment. So, I'm dealing with in-camera JPGs. But maybe it is a profile thing that can be isolated via DNG analysis and this lens? I feel like it's mostly the lens. Although it's looking like that's not the case based on Robert's posts above. Thanks! -Will (BTW, these shots were made prior to the 1.092 firmware upgrade. I was using 1.09.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertwright Posted March 12, 2007 Share #12 Posted March 12, 2007 When you say you processed these in Aperture, which profile are you using?. Are you using the exact copy of the Nikon-D200 or have you edited the m1 & m2 to reflect the newer 1.092 FW changes. I would recommend staying with the unadjusted copy of the Nikon-D200for the moment as these newer colour values that have been updated by the 1.092 FW tend to give golden tones when used on lenses without the IR/Cut 486's and more normal colours with the IR/Cuts in place. This is the stock copy of the D200 profile per your glorious hack. These are also all taken with B+W 486's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertwright Posted March 12, 2007 Share #13 Posted March 12, 2007 If anyone has the enthusiasm, the thing to do would be to take a look at the AsShotNeutral tag in the DNGs. If it is an M8 WB issue, it would probably show as a substantial difference between shots there.... Sandy do you just open the dng in a text editor like BBedit or do you need a hex editor to do that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 12, 2007 Share #14 Posted March 12, 2007 Diffraction degrades the image, so you loose detail, is that what's happening? I've had odd white balance on occasions with the camera set to auto WB. One shot can look very different from another. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertwright Posted March 12, 2007 Share #15 Posted March 12, 2007 opening the dngs in hexedit, I cannot find that tag. I can see the exif info at the beginning, but no values like AsShotNeutral. My shots were set on AWB btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstotler Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share #16 Posted March 12, 2007 Diffraction degrades the image, so you loose detail, is that what's happening? The loss of detail, yes. It did lose some detail from my other shots. But it picked up that "burned in" look that's related to color. I'm going to take a guess based on your response and Robert's response that "burn in" coloration is being caused by: (A) Not enough color information to post-process color "effectively" (due to diffraction sapping out detail and its associated color from an already underexposed image), which left more "golden" sunlight hues in the image (function of f/16 setting) for Aperture to accentuate. ( Some skewing of color in the original JPG by the M8's JPG Daylight WB algorithm. (This, coupled with less color information due to diffraction accentuates the burned colors.) © Some characteristic of the glass in the CV15 and how it handles color/light. (It's an uncoded lens at the moment. But it does paint its colors in a particular way regardless of any vignetting.) This would explain mostly everything--even how the effect can be provoked in my coded Summicrons (althought not to the degree of the CV 15). Thanks everyone--diffraction as a contributing cause wouldn't have occurred to me and the color casts shown by Robert in his images do seem to be similar to what I'm reporting but to a lesser degree because his exposures are pretty close to what they should be. Much appreciated. Will Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted March 12, 2007 Share #17 Posted March 12, 2007 Robert, Adobe have a tool called dng_validate, which is part of their DNG SDK, downloadable from their website. That spits out all the various tags is easily readable form, if you run it with the -v option. Easier than trying to look at hex!! Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertwright Posted March 12, 2007 Share #18 Posted March 12, 2007 The loss of detail, yes. It did lose some detail from my other shots. But it picked up that "burned in" look that's related to color. I'm going to take a guess based on your response and Robert's response that "burn in" coloration is being caused by: (A) Not enough color information to post-process color "effectively" (due to diffraction sapping out detail and its associated color from an already underexposed image), which left more "golden" sunlight hues in the image (function of f/16 setting) for Aperture to accentuate. ( Some skewing of color in the original JPG by the M8's JPG Daylight WB algorithm. (This, coupled with less color information due to diffraction accentuates the burned colors.) © Some characteristic of the glass in the CV15 and how it handles color/light. (It's an uncoded lens at the moment. But it does paint its colors in a particular way regardless of any vignetting.) This would explain mostly everything--even how the effect can be provoked in my coded Summicrons (althought not to the degree of the CV 15). Thanks everyone--diffraction as a contributing cause wouldn't have occurred to me and the color casts shown by Robert in his images do seem to be similar to what I'm reporting but to a lesser degree because his exposures are pretty close to what they should be. Much appreciated. Will I am not sure I follow you-were the two exposures equivalent exposures, for example f8-1/60th and f16-1/15th? If that were the case then the result is more surprising-but I would not suspect diffraction effects as having anything to do with the flakey wb performance. A general softening of details for sure. My guess is that the CV15 is not getting any better over f8 and is probably getting worse overall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertwright Posted March 12, 2007 Share #19 Posted March 12, 2007 Jaap--thanks for the quick response. The first image is a crop of the original, unprocessed f/16 with the 15mm CV. 160 ISO, in-camera WB set to Daylight, JPG (highest quality). The second image shows my postprocessing. In Aperture I bumped up the exposure about two stops, reduced the shadows, and adjusted the WB (based on sampling a known white found elsewhere in this photo). Here's where it gets interesting. I know that the yellowish light character is introduced with the WB adjustment, but photos at f/4.5 and f/8 in the same light with the same WB location sampled didn't come out like this--just this one where I'm shooting at f/16. That leaves me thinking it's something to do with way the lens is capturing (or not capturing) the light--even though the WB postprocessing actually "makes" the effect. I know for *sure* it has something to do with the lens (or the physics of light capture) because this scene did NOT look at all like this when I was standing there taking the photo (or the other photos, for that matter). Please ignore the spots on the photo--dirty lens with an f/16 to show all the dusty glory and no postproduction cleanup. My fly is down. Just quick samples, as requested. The "burn-in" look isn't a problem, BTW. The way this looks suits me. I'm not trying to "fix" it. As long as I understand what it is--and choose to shoot this way (or not) selectively instead of accidentally. Thoughts? now that I re-read your post more carefully I understand that the color cast is coming in as a result of Wb IN aperture-so all bets are off. The WB in Aperture is about as flakey as the wb in the M8. You may try to set the pipette at the same place but for example if you have the sampler set to 1x1 pixels that will throw a huge variable into it-in addition, the wb tool in aperture is not very reliable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstotler Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share #20 Posted March 12, 2007 I am not sure I follow you-were the two exposures equivalent exposures, for example f8-1/60th and f16-1/15th? The shot above that I posted (original, golden) was f/16 at a 1/500th sec. The other images I took that "lost" their golden tones were at f/4.5 or f/8 and 1/125th. Not sure if that qualifies as "equivalent." Cropped samples attached below--original (out of camera JPG) and adjusted (same WB spot used--out of crop area). The colors are "drab" but this sure was close to what was happening with the light when I was shooting these images. These were taken seconds after the images shown first, above. Thanks. --Will Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/18560-m8-burned-golden-look-lens-or-m8/?do=findComment&comment=198208'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.