This flower was blindingly red. I intentionally underexposed the shot by 2 stops from my 5D's recommendation to avoid completely blowing out the oversensitive red channel. I have no idea how to produce a picture that accurately portrays this real-life color; I suspect it's not possible in my camera or display's color gamut.
I took a stab at trying to deal with the tricky red ... hope you don't mind (will pull if desired). Looks like your 2 stop under was pretty good. the most Red I found was 243. Makes me wonder if 2 1/2 stops under might be a strategy for Sunny 16 red's. Curious to your feedback on the pp rendering.
I took a stab at trying to deal with the tricky red ... hope you don't mind. Curious to your feedback on the pp rendering.
I don't mind. However, I think PP'ing this into more "true to life" color is a futile task (especially if you did not see the real life color). The flower was an intensely pure spectral red that my monitor simply isn't capable of displaying, even when lighting up only red pixels. Your version makes the flower "brighter" by turning it more orange; aesthetically, it's probably a better picture --- but gets further, rather than closer, to reproducing the striking real color. I hope that within the next decade wider-gamut monitors that are up to the task will be available (and camera sensors with awesome color separation).
Thanks ... definitely a "shot in the dark" without a reference of having seen it. I assumed the brightest grout to be neutral, and saw the subsequent "orange" come into it, hence the reason I asked.
Thanks ... it gives me something to think about for my own future shooting.
RustyBug wrote:
Looks like your 2 stop under was pretty good. the most Red I found was 243. Makes me wonder if 2 1/2 stops under might be a strategy for Sunny 16 red's.
The color channels that you see in the final rendered image are somewhat of a red herring. They have already been multiplied/mixed by the necessary white balancing, so they don't represent the headroom available in the "real" data. In particular, a red value of <255 might already be badly clipped --- the RAW reconstruction algorithm is using residual signals from the other color channels to guess how far above clipping the red actually is. Google for "unitary white balance" to learn how to get closer to the "real" histogram that will tell you about color clipping. Canon sensors tend to produce higher internal RAW values for the red channel, so it clips much sooner that you might expect; hence the advantage of heavy under-exposure, followed by pulling the levels back up in post, for imaging red-heavy subjects (in this particular example, I boosted +0.8 stops in post after underexposing by 2 to produce the image shown).
I envy with your precious gears and respect your efforts of keep post on alt flower and always wish to give you nice commends.But seem that I didn't do it much .Your flowers always have nice compositions and bokeh but the main description like details of petals, pistils rarely shine, it mustbe not because of the gears .I really do hope you make it better. Sincerely.
if you do not have anything nice to say then don't say it.
I think your photos are simple snapshots without regard for composition, light or angle Contas.
Pls, I don't need any advice.If you feel something not good on my pics , comment right on them .I never do a personal attack, just I know his try and hope he would be better.No advice pls.
