Postprocessing, SOOC, and shooting film

[pnodrog]

I'm hearing the words but somehow not feeling the love...

It certainly was not lost in translation - I was relying on your interpretation being accurate...

[Manfred M]

Ted - your approach to colour is quite technically based, i.e. mapping specific wavelengths of light to specific colours, black body radiator defining the colour temperature, etc. That is a perfectly valid approach when it comes to some aspects of photography.

There are two other aspects that I suspect that you discount:

1. Physiological aspects of the human visual system - basically how human eyes work and how the brain interprets the data that gets passed to if via the optic nerve. This would include the variability of colour vision from person to person, the impact of brightness on colour vision and the very strange property that the brain decodes equal amounts of red, green and blue light as being white; and

2. The psychological aspects of vision - why we tend feel that low colour temperature light sources; candles, fires give a warm light versus how high colour temperature light sources (the northern sky on a clear day) cast a cool light. The various colour wheels and other aspects that artists often refer to as "colour theory".

All three aspects, the technical, physiological and psychological need to be considered when viewing an image. Colour accuracy based on purely technical considerations is purely that. As photographers we need to take all three aspects into account when dealing with colour.

[Manfred M]

I remember having a chat with several of the instructors at the local college when I first started taking photography courses there some eight years ago. I had just started my transition from film and point & shoot / superzoom cameras to a DSLR and wanted to expand my understanding.

One of the subjects that we got into discussing was what was referred to as the "Canon look" versus the "Nikon look". The consensus view of the instructors, all experienced commercial photographers who had been working in the field for at least 30 years; they were all photographers who were early adapters of DSLRs starting with the first or second generation of this type of camera.

The consensus view was that the "look" were the SOOC JPEG images that the cameras produced at default JPEG settings using "base" ISO and default JPEG settings using OEM lenses. The inclusion of lenses was a bit of a surprise to me, but it was pointed out that colour, bokeh, etc. were part of the end-to-end approach in creating images. Third party lenses would not have these factors built into their designs.

I realize that there were other variables involved as well, including the computer screens, etc.

[Tronhard]

Like any human activity there can be polar views on any subject, especially one dealing with many technical elements, art and the human element itself. There are issues of interpretation, definition, theory vs. practicality, and even right down to why people take photos. I am a pragmatist, I shoot in JPG and RAW as suits my purpose.

Since post #26 things have quite testy. I think robust debate is a good thing as long as we are all clear what we are debating about and do so with respect. I fear that some of that latter element has been getting a bit thin on the ground so I am going to bow out of this thread and go onto a less contentious subject - such as the meaning of the word "crane"...

Enjoy yourselves with my best wishes.

[xpatUSA]

So according to what I understand from what you are saying... you use a colour check card on [ALL?] your images. It must take you a long time to take photos of wildlife.

I do not do so and I rarely shoot wildlife.

Ignoring your dismissive tone...

Sorry.

Ignoring your assumptions as to what I do ...

My point is this. You have a definition of colour accuracy that you are comfortable with - fine. It works for you but I have POLITELY tried to point out that there can be many variables on the road to that place.
When taking a photo of a wild animal I generally don't have a lot of time to hold up a colour calibration card. Street photographers probably have the same issue.

Accepting that you have the time to do that as you say, you also say that you colour check according to your file data that that is irrelevant to what your eyeballs see. But if your eyeballs are going to see something then you will need a device to display the image and that is when some of the variables I listed come into play. You say you don't print, so that leaves us with displaying on a digital device, yet you are dismissive of calibration of such a device.

Am I missing something here?

Yes.

I color-check a camera by shooting an X-rite target on my studio wall under known lighting, just like ImaTest does (theirs being far more sophisticated than mine but the basic principle remains true). I check the patch L*a*b* values and compare them to those listed on the card leaflet. I enter the values into a spreadsheet which determines the deviation in chroma and hue-angle.

I could have my monitor set to monochrome and my results would not be affected and that is why I was "dismissive" - in the sense that a correctly calibrated monitor is not required for the test heretofore described.

I fold, Trev. Please don't come back and tell me how wrong my color-checking is.

Take care,

[xpatUSA]

Ted - your approach to colour is quite technically based, i.e. mapping specific wavelengths of light to specific colours, black body radiator defining the colour temperature, etc. That is a perfectly valid approach when it comes to some aspects of photography.

I do not do anything like that - please see post #45.

There are two other aspects that I suspect that you discount:

1. Physiological aspects of the human visual system - basically how human eyes work and how the brain interprets the data that gets passed to if via the optic nerve. This would include the variability of colour vision from person to person, the impact of brightness on colour vision and the very strange property that the brain decodes equal amounts of red, green and blue light as being white; and

2. The psychological aspects of vision - why we tend feel that low colour temperature light sources; candles, fires give a warm light versus how high colour temperature light sources (the northern sky on a clear day) cast a cool light. The various colour wheels and other aspects that artists often refer to as "colour theory".

All three aspects, the technical, physiological and psychological need to be considered when viewing an image. Colour accuracy based on purely technical considerations is purely that. As photographers we need to take all three aspects into account when dealing with colour.

Again, please see my post #45 as to what I do and why what I do excludes the two points made above.

I find it rather odd that, in matters of color accuracy, industry e.g. fabric or paint mfgs, goes to great lengths to determine color differences, usually in CIELAB space delta-E units.

On the other hand "most of us" seem to shoot shrubbery and rolling hills, post-process the result, print it out and then enthuse about "the color" of this camera versus that. Please pardon the sarc.

It seems, therefore, that "color accuracy" has several meanings here. Mine is:

If I shoot my X-rite blue patch under D50 lighting I am shooting a color known to be L*a*b* = 28.778, 14.179, -50.279.

If I color-pick the result in RawTherapee and the numbers I get are within 1 delta-E, I would be ecstatic.

If the numbers I get are within 2.3 delta-E, I would be very happy.

If instead the numbers I get are outside of say 5 or 6 delta-E, I would be quite grumpy.

"color accuracy", what does it mean ...

[Rent]

I would just like to say that my colour vision changed noticeably after cataract surgery
Roy

[Manfred M]

I would just like to say that my colour vision changed noticeably after cataract surgery
Roy

A former work colleague and avid photographer went through the same procedure as you did . He had one eye done before the other and I remember him commenting on how much more yellow things seemed on the eye that had not been operated on and how he noticed this even after the second surgery.

This is what I was getting at with #1 on thread #42. A lot of people with think about colour blindness, but that is just one of the effects. In general, as we age, our colour acuity decreases. As a generalization women seem to have better colour vision as men. In the "old days" when films were processed and printed, colour console operators were usually female for this reason.

[Pippan]

... you use a colour check card on [ALL?] your images. It must take you a long time to take photos of wildlife.

I don't often comment on this forum due to the tension frequently evident amongst members, although I do read threads to learn. I'd just like to comment on the above partial sentence though as it might help others as it once helped me. I often shoot a Colorchecker and produce a light source profile with my raw converter (Photo Ninja). It takes seconds. What I realised after a while though is that if the sun is the light source, which it is for many of my photos and for most wildlife photos, its profile is always the same (barring atmospheric effects). So if I forget to do a colorchecker shot one day, I just use one I took yesterday, or last week, or last year. It's always the same. I don't always use that as my final colour balance but if I start from there it's easy to tweak to taste. I used to spend a lot of time trying to get colour balance right until I started doing this.

Of course near the beginning and end of the day the sunlight is warmer (due to the extra atmosphere it passes through that absorbs or scatters more of the blue end) but we usually want to keep that golden glow so I do my sunlight profile shot near midday and that way near sunset the golden light is also rendered well. Overcast conditions (which are not common where I live) result in a slightly different profile due to the effects of cloud, but not much different, and if your sunlight profile doesn't look right for an overcast shot it's easy to do a reference Colorchecker shot under those overcast conditions if that's what you're shooting in. Different sensors, lens coatings and filters all have an effect on the profile of light recorded but if your reference shot is taken with the same camera, lens and filter (if any), all that is taken into consideration when you press the 'build profile' button. Obviously artificial light can be wildly different from sunlight, and mixed lighting is tricky, but I think those who don't use light source profiles don't realise how easy and quick it is to do so, and how much time can be saved by starting your processing with accurate colours. Colorchecker software is made to work with Lightroom/ACR, which I don't use, so I imagine making a light source profile with that software would be at least as quick as the few seconds it takes with Photo Ninja.

[NorthernFocus]

I don't often comment on this forum due to the tension frequently evident amongst members, although I do read threads to learn....

Unfortunately this is all too true on internet forums in general and CiC ,albeit better than most, is no exception. Day after day the effects/impacts of human ego are on display. Ego prevents us from being able to view the world from perspectives other than that of our own experience. Everything that we know/do, based on our own experience, it "right" and anything different is "wrong". Not just different but wrong. While in reality there are typically many ways to arrive at the same end, none of which are right or wrong, just different. For some reason this seems to REALLY manifest itself in discussions about photography.

As an example of just HOW different perspectives can be:

...What I realised after a while though is that if the sun is the light source, which it is for many of my photos and for most wildlife photos, its profile is always the same (barring atmospheric effects). So if I forget to do a colorchecker shot one day, I just use one I took yesterday, or last week, or last year. It's always the same...

Where I live, in Alaska, there are almost always atmospheric effects and/or the sun is very low to the horizon. So the above does not apply. Were I to allow my ego free reign, this is about the time that I would launch into a tirade about how nonsensical the previous statement is. However, having been designed/gifted with a frontal cortex that provides the ability to reason and to override the instinctive ego residing in the base of the brain common to all mammals, I am able to understand. Hmmm, different geography, different shooting conditions, therefore different methods to arrive at the same end result. Interesting. I learned something today. Not highly useful for my own photography toolbox, but interesting and logically I can see how useful it can be for others.

And again:

... I don't always use that as my final colour balance but if I start from there it's easy to tweak to taste. I used to spend a lot of time trying to get colour balance right until I started doing this...

What is "right" or "correct" color balance? Technically I fully understand the concept of standards and calibrating against them. But as a photographer I'm more concerned with color in the mind's eye of those who view my images. Probably the most important thing for me to understand regarding color is how colors are captured by my camera(for given settings) and subsequently how they render in my RAW converter of choice. That then shortens the time required to "tweak to taste". The only actual calibration I'm concerned with is between my monitor used for editing and any printer that I may use to produce physical media.

And yet another difference in perspective:

... I think those who don't use light source profiles don't realise how easy and quick it is to do so, and how much time can be saved by starting your processing with accurate colours...

Regardless of how quick it may be, for my typical shooting scenarios and desired output I can not imagine how said profiling can do anything other than to unnecessarily complicate my photography life. Similarly I don't think that anyone concerned with "accurate colours" can understand how little time I spend trying to achieve them during PP.

Hopefully I succeeded in keeping the above civil and haven't offended with my choice of words. Unfortunately I'm as human as the next person and subject to the influence of ego which may have blinded me to things said that seem perfectly benign to me yet are offensive to others. If so I apologize in advance. My intent was solely to provide a different perspective on achieving the same end. Not right vs wrong, just different.

[Pippan]

Hi Dan, yes I think I must have been out to lunch when they handed out egos. I've never understood how people, nearly all male, can walk around supremely confident in their own greatness and ability. I've never felt like that and can't relate. It's not humility, I just still feel there's so much I don't know, and I'm no longer young. Often I post things just to provide an opportunity to have someone point out my folly or suggest better methods, and thereby I learn.

When I mentioned 'right' colour balance I meant what I find pleasing--I don't believe there is a 'true' or 'correct' colour balance that can be aspired to, especially in mixed lighting.

I'm curious what colour balance you start with, since in processing you have to start somewhere. Is it a camera setting such as AWB, a custom WB, daylight, cloudy? I don't like AWB because it's often all over the place for different photos in a session, even when the light doesn't change. It makes sense to me to start colour balancing each photo in a session from a set point. I could start with daylight, or cloudy, or a custom WB, or I can start with a light source profile, and I can use any of them for the whole session if it's in the same light. Whichever choice, it's just a click away, so just as easy to choose, whichever it is. And I find the colour balance I get straight up from light source profiles is better than any of the in-camera settings and is usually good enough for me without further tweaking. But not always, I might add or subtract one or more points of blue, yellow, green or magenta, though not often.

But each to their own and I appreciate the different perspective. I can't imagine what living in Alaska must be like, coming from the wet-dry tropics.

[Manfred M]

I can't imagine what living in Alaska must be like, coming from the wet-dry tropics.

Just as a bit of an aside. We have friends who moved from Darwin, Australia to Whitehorse, in Canada's Yukon Territory (which is almost as far north as Anchorage Alaska, but much further inland) just over a year ago and love it there.

[pnodrog]

Just as a bit of an aside. We have friends who moved from Darwin, Australia to Whitehorse, in Canada's Yukon Territory (which is almost as far north as Anchorage Alaska, but much further inland) just over a year ago and love it there.

Out of the frying pan into the freezer - I dare not use the term extremists as it has other connotations.

[NorthernFocus]

Greg, sorry I chose your post to use as the basis of my addition to the discussion. It was simply at the top(I have my preferences set up to sort newest on top) and I could definitely relate to your comment about tension in discussions. Goodness knows I've found myself unintentionally involved in (with hind sight) rediculous arguments with other members. Then when I read further I realized we seem nearly 180 out in our approach which seemed like a good learning opportunity for the open minded(among whom I would count you based on the limited information I have available). No doubt many "newbies" read these threads and in the context of a learning forum IMO they should be offered various perspectives to understand that no one size fits all. I'm always amused(not pleasantly) when two individuals who both produce excellent imagery can engage in seemingly life/death arguments over minutiae when in fact they both achieve good results. People....

At any rate, it seems that at least on this topic we can carry on with additional civil discussion.

...I'm curious what colour balance you start with, since in processing you have to start somewhere. Is it a camera setting such as AWB, a custom WB, daylight, cloudy? I don't like AWB because it's often all over the place for different photos in a session, even when the light doesn't change. It makes sense to me to start colour balancing each photo in a session from a set point...

First off, let me say that when I carry a camera into the field, I have NO intention/expectation of producing an image that SOOC even remotely resembles what the finished image will be in color/exposure/contrast. In the field when I preview images I look for two things. Is it in focus? Am I satisfied with the histogram? That's it.

Second, what is a "session"? I'll assume that means a single outing to shoot a given subject. For me a typical session lasts several hours, possibly from daylight till dark. So by definition during my typical session the lighting changes dramatically. Even in overcast conditions the WB changes minute by minute as the thickness of the cloud cover varies. And with wildlife I have only marginal influence on lighting angles so can be shooting the same subject front lit one minute and backlit the next. That being said, from a day of shooting there will typically be groups of images under similar lighting conditions. One could argue that each of those groups defines a "session". Even so, rather than add an additional variable that requires adjustment in the field/in the moment, I simply shoot AWB. I've found that except in extreme conditions(like in the middle of a snow storm or REALLY low light) AWB on the gear that I shoot and converted in LR usually provides a good starting point. Then in post I'll pick one image of a group with similar lighting, adjust WB/color until I'm satisfied, then simply copy the resultant setting to the rest of the photos in that particular group. With few exceptions that works pretty well for me.

At times in the past I have tried using grey/white cards in the field, mostly back in the day when I shot a lot of florals. Honestly even in that situation IMO there simply wasn't enough benefit to warrant the hassle of using them. Granted I didn't stick with it long enough to get over the learning curve and make it a standard part of my technique. Anyway doing so was contrary to my minimalist approach(aka laziness).

Hope that was responsive to your questions.

As additional consideration for how different lighting conditions may be based on geography, consider the following:

In Darwin, land of Oz, the angle of the sun above the horizon at summer/winter solstice varies from roughly 79 to 54 degrees respectively. In Anchorage, AK, the variation is from 52 to 5 degrees. That's no typo. At winter solstice the sun at noon is roughly five degrees above the horizon. And during summer solstice it is just shy of the same altitude as your winter sun. In winter we go directly from sunrise to sunset lighting. No golden hour. Golden days. It's awesome(aside from freezing your nose off)

[Pippan]

Just as a bit of an aside. We have friends who moved from Darwin, Australia to Whitehorse, in Canada's Yukon Territory (which is almost as far north as Anchorage Alaska, but much further inland) just over a year ago and love it there.

Coincidentally enough, one of Darwin's 'sister cities' is Anchorage. A good excuse for councillors' junkets. But I'm sure there are similarities apart from the obvious differences. AFAIK the nearest city of more than 200,000 people to Darwin is Makassar, on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, about 1500 km away. The nearest Australian city of that size or more is 3,000 km away. The capital cities of five other countries are closer to Darwin than Australia's capital. Probably not dissimilar to Anchorage. Remoteness, transport, communications, food supply etc. are all issues for both, as is extreme weather (we just had, at my place, 1000mm of rain in January alone—>200 mm in just one day—and nearby localities had more).

I'd love to visit Alaska and Canada one day. I reckon I'd love it too, though I don't do cold very well.

[Pippan]

I don't often comment on this forum due to the tension frequently evident amongst members, although I do read threads to learn.

I just want to clarify, in case anyone thought by quoting his sentence I intended to imply that Trev was the source of tension. That is not at all what I intended. Looking at my post though I can see how it could be interpreted that way. Re tension, I wasn't even specifically referring to this thread but just the forum in general, usually people arguing robustly and IMO a bit too far for their point of view. I simply quoted that part of Trev's post to address how I would use a Colorchecker while photographing wildlife, which I often have the opportunity to do.

As Dan noted, such tension is a trait of most forums. I am also on POTN and people are frequently banned from there for flaming others, but somehow tension there easier to ignore. The general tone of debate on CiC is, I think, of a higher level for the most part so I get disheartened when I see two or more participants hammering it out. Having said that though I was very impressed a while ago, when soon after joining the CiC forum, one of its members (can't remember who) apologised very profusely and very publicly for having got too heated in a discussion. You don't see that in forums too often.

[Pippan]

Then in post I'll pick one image of a group with similar lighting, adjust WB/color until I'm satisfied, then simply copy the resultant setting to the rest of the photos in that particular group. With few exceptions that works pretty well for me.

In Darwin, land of Oz, the angle of the sun above the horizon at summer/winter solstice varies from roughly 79 to 54 degrees respectively. In Anchorage, AK, the variation is from 52 to 5 degrees. That's no typo. At winter solstice the sun at noon is roughly five degrees above the horizon. And during summer solstice it is just shy of the same altitude as your winter sun. In winter we go directly from sunrise to sunset lighting. No golden hour. Golden days. It's awesome(aside from freezing your nose off)

Thanks for the description of your colour balancing processing Dan. It's pretty much what I do, except that I start (and often end) with a light source profile.

I'd love to have 'golden days' as you allude to. You've got to be ready and quick here to take advantage of the 'golden 20 minutes'. You're right with the sun angles but I should clarify that the 'summer' (often our coolest time of year due to the rain) angle is to the SOUTH, not to the north as is usual in the southern hemisphere. So some time in February and again in November the noonday sun is at 90 degrees overhead. Harsh? Yes. Skin cancer country due to extreme UV? Yes. CPL use almost mandatory? Yes.

[Tronhard]

I just want to clarify, in case anyone thought by quoting his sentence I intended to imply that Trev was the source of tension. That is not at all what I intended. Looking at my post though I can see how it could be interpreted that way....
...I was very impressed a while ago, when soon after joining the CiC forum, one of its members (can't remember who) apologised very profusely and very publicly for having got too heated in a discussion. You don't see that in forums too often.

Greg, thank you for that clarification - I was getting a bit worried about unsuppressed angler complexes.

As regards the apology post, actually that was me... (An apology to forum members),. I am never too proud to say I am wrong if I truly believe that.
I withdrew from this thread for fear of breaching my own standards in that area.

[tclune]

I only have one caveat with OOC JPEGs. On my cameras, the JPEGs come with chroma sub-sampling, whether I like it or not. Either 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, meaning that some color info is lost, compared with raw.

[Tangent]
Is this true? AIUI, Bayer sensors are essentially 4:2:2, with the green channel being the "luminance" value. But I could well be wrong.
[/Tangent]

[xpatUSA]

[Tangent]
Is this true? AIUI, Bayer sensors are essentially 4:2:2, with the green channel being the "luminance" value. But I could well be wrong.
[/Tangent]

Good tangential thinking, Tom, but I was not referring to the Bayer CFA pattern.

Indeed, I've never seen it referred to as "4:2:2" either, do you have a link for that?

As you may know, there are two parts to creating a JPEG.

One is compression. The other is degrees of color sub-sampling, including 'none'.

When sub-sampling is used the converter transforms the color space from RGB to Y'CbCr which is a two-axis space. Then Cb and Cr are downsized a) if 4:2:0 was selected but b) only one of them if 4:2:2 was selected and c) neither of them if 4:4:4 was selected.

Point being that the downsizing (called chroma sub-sampling) loses color information which is not regained when the JPEG is decoded back to RGB, e.g. to show on a screen or to get printed.

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

Clear as mud, eh?