Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We have several wild fires burning in California and today sky is very smokey. Outside I needed Sunny16+5 or 6 stops exposure since it is overcast with all the smoke. But the more interesting part is that it is difficult to replicate the sky color perceived by us  (me, friends, media). Everybody is describing the sky as yellowish, orange but if you take a cell phone pic or a "proper" :) camera pic using white balance, you do not see such intense yellow/orange!

See the pics below. First one is using white balance (in camera WB by shooting gray card). WB temp shows 2.4k. 2nd one is after PP (Temp 2.9k) matching colors what I "think I see".

Color is a tricky business.

 

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, logan2z said:

That second photo looks pretty close to what I'm seeing out my window right now in the Bay Area.  Pretty bizarre.

I am in Bay area too. It is indeed bizarre (and sad since it is burning somewhere). 

However my point was that WB correction based on white/gray object doesn't show you what we perceive. WB correction is very subjective (as in 2nd pic).

Edited by jmahto
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in Merced, a little north of Fresno,  with the air quality and subsequent coloring of the atmosphere why would you use a grey card.. The Grey Card is inches away from the camera, the colored air is surely what you need to capture.. I use a grey card for very bright sunny scenes, or snow scenes.. 2 from earlier (colors as per scene) D--Lux 7

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, gotium said:

I see even a little more orange in it

I totally agree with you - here's an image before the fires.. V-Lux 4

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jmahto said:

I am in Bay area too. It is indeed bizarre (and sad since it is burning somewhere). 

However my point was that WB correction based on white/gray object doesn't show you what we perceive. WB correction is very subjective (as in 2nd pic).

Setting WB using a calibrated grey card, such as Pantone ColorChecker of WhiBal, removes colour contamination. What remains is true colour, but your eyes and brain try to make it look like conventional blue sky. Sadly your pictures record faithfully the heavily polluted skies due to the fires. That is my belief. Very sad situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

And if you set WB to "daylight" ?

This is what you get.. The pic is shot at 1pm in the afternoon.
(Selecting Daylight WB in LR. 5.5k Temp)
PS: I have also taken a pic with my M2 loaded with Ektar. I am guessing it will come out similar to below. I will know maybe in 6 months. :D

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!

Edited by jmahto
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wda said:

Setting WB using a calibrated grey card, such as Pantone ColorChecker of WhiBal, removes colour contamination. What remains is true colour, but your eyes and brain try to make it look like conventional blue sky. Sadly your pictures record faithfully the heavily polluted skies due to the fires. That is my belief. Very sad situation.

Yes, that is what I was trying to illustrate. In fact there had been few articles in popular media explaining why cell phone pictures are not showing yellowish sky that much (auto WB). On the extreme end I have seen some really dramatic sky coloring by PP like my picture above (which is also not what I think I could see).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of automated or "camera" white-balancing is to show a scene as if it was lit by normal, full-spectrum, sunlight. So, yes, it will often destroy global color effects from light sources (including smoke clouds, or sunsets).

Which is why I have my .DNG post-processing presets for the M10 set to a constant 5000°K/no tint. And never use "As shot" or "Auto" WB.

By default, I want to reproduce the colors and wavelengths that were actually at the scene, including lighting effects. Or at least as close as the sensor/film technology allows. At which point I have the option to rebalance the colors to something I prefer.

My color-photography instructor in college told use there are four types of "correct" color in photography.

- scientifically accurate color - a red of wavelength 682 nanometers in the scene is reproduced as a red of wavelength 682 nanometers in the final photograph.

Only one photo process has ever done this - and it is very cumbersome. Involves a poisonous liquid-mercury mirror (or close approximation) touching the emulsion during exposure, perfect photo viewing conditions, and is related to the swirls of color that appear in soap bubbles, oil spilled on a wet pavement, or in credit card security holograms (lightwave interference colors).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippmann_plate

- technically accurate color - put the picture up beside the original object or scene and there is no difference to the eye.

- effectively accurate color - "It looks like what my memory tells me I saw."

 - emotionally accurate color - "The colors convey what I felt."

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure - but complicated by the fact that the colour is created by the light falling on the object (AKA print)  If that is not completely RGB neutral, there will always be a colour shift. Not even opening the can of worms called Metamerism ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Sure - but complicated by the fact that the colour is created by the light falling on the object (AKA print)  If that is not completely RGB neutral, there will always be a colour shift. Not even opening the can of worms called Metamerism ;) 

+1   Display lighting...one of the most critical, and underrated, aspects of print rendering (and not just related to color). A very good print can’t ‘sing’ without proper lighting.  And even the type and transmission properties of cover glass can alter perceived rendering.  Same applies to b/w prints.

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I used my Q which is typically set to auto white balance to take some pictures yesterday.  The color didn't need adjustment as much as the exposure did.   The sky in the image was about 2/3 of a stop brighter than what I was seeing outside my window when editing.   I used a luma mask to select the sky in Capture One and dropped the exposure.   The resulting color pretty well matched what I saw looking out my window.

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, marchyman said:

I used my Q which is typically set to auto white balance to take some pictures yesterday.  The color didn't need adjustment as much as the exposure did.   The sky in the image was about 2/3 of a stop brighter than what I was seeing outside my window when editing.   I used a luma mask to select the sky in Capture One and dropped the exposure.   The resulting color pretty well matched what I saw looking out my window.

Must be good auto WB algorithm. Can you post the pic please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2020 at 1:13 PM, jmahto said:

Can you post the pic please.

Before/after screen capture.   The "sky" layer is a selection of the sky with -0.74 stop exposure adjustment.

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!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, West-Coast folks - We are all pulling for you.

Colorado has had its own fires this summer, including a new state record for acres burned in a single incident (139000 - Pine Gulch). And a few heavy smoke days even in Denver.

But ours absolutely pale in comparison to the devastation of homes and lives and communities hitting WA, OR, and CA. Almost incomprehensible.....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...