Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
  

Archive 2013 · Is this believable?
  
 
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Is this believable?


Camperjim wrote:
I re-read this and the other believability thread and I think I have come to some conclusions.

1. The idea of some sort of automated or software solution to color balance issues seems absurd. As I stated before using a gray card and custom white balance makes no sense when the lighting is unusual. A gray rock will not appear gray when illuminated by warm sunset or sunrise lighting. This does not work at the time of capture. Likewise you cannot use an eyedropper or other WB technique during post processing for the same reasons. I know when I take
...Show more

Your number one comment sort of says there is no solution. I would not know what to do after reading it other than give up.

By the time I finish reading, it seems we have a subject that needs lots of work.

After looking at all the comments, reworks and color cast opinions in this thread, most of which totally escape my visual acuity, I think I will need to follow some formalistic method and somehow learn to ignore critics just as I have with respect to composition. So maybe thats the real answer, build myself a mental shield against comments.



Sep 19, 2013 at 03:03 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Is this believable?


ben egbert wrote:
The variances between the versions in this post that catch my eye are the differences in brightness and contrast. To some extent saturation. I like more saturation than most people here, but the comments on color cast are mostly things for which I have to take your word for.


The only thing I can really offer to that is that where we can't "see" (i.e. detect variation) things ... we have numbers to help us assess. Learning to use the numbers and how one incorporates that in conjunction with what they are seeing is going to be highly individualistic. Your fellow FM'ers have given a good effort to help. ATM, I'm at a bit of a loss as to what more I can offer as assistance that won't be just another re-hash.

A couple of thoughts bounce around @ finding someone to work with on a local basis. The cyber-help can only go so far. Also, finding someone who you might enlist their input (spouse, granddaughter, neighbor, etc.) as a cross-check would likely come with a helpful spirit, rather than a critical one ... even if they are applying a critical eye. Maybe developing a relationship with an outsourcing lab and your instructions are for color balance only, leaving artistic rendering @ contrast/sat/etc. to your style/taste. But, if you're color assessment is truly challenged, then it might warrant some assist from others ... those who have your good faith interests in mind and a critical eye.

Other than that ... if you like 'em ... hang 'em.








Sep 19, 2013 at 03:29 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Is this believable?


RustyBug wrote:
The only thing I can really offer to that is that where we can't "see" (i.e. detect variation) things ... we have numbers to help us assess. Learning to use the numbers and how one incorporates that in conjunction with what they are seeing is going to be highly individualistic. Your fellow FM'ers have given a good effort to help. ATM, I'm at a bit of a loss as to what more I can offer as assistance that won't be just another re-hash.

A couple of thoughts bounce around @ finding someone to work with on a local basis. The cyber-help
...Show more

I use my wife who says I use to much saturation, but generally does not complain of color cast for this. I use my grand daughter when she is in town. Again, usually more on saturation than color.

I am using what I think I learned here for my Dead Horse point work which I will show at Landscape slowly. I want to live with them a while (per suggestion) before showing.

They will be less saturated and less shadow recovered and more effort to get color balance. Although it is still very hard to find neutrals at golden hour.

When doing landscapes, I take care to have the sun at my back or sometimes directly into it. Shadows are shadows. I recover some leave some. I want golden hour color where it is supposed to be golden. I think my main problem is to avoid too golden.





Sep 20, 2013 at 01:25 AM
Camperjim
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Is this believable?


ben egbert wrote:
Your number one comment sort of says there is no solution. I would not know what to do after reading it other than give up.

........


I don't think this is different than focus, depth of field, or exposure and blending for dynamic range or any other adjustments we made to our images. We have tools such as built in exposure meters to help us but the adjustment of the final product is up to our intentions and decisions.

I think you protest too much. You post some images taken under difficult or unusual lighting. You ask for opinions and comments and then protest when you get them. I liked the old Ben Lite processing from a year or so ago. Then your processing was minimal and you let the beauty of the scenery carry the interest in the image. Now it seems you want to compete with some of the Landscape Forum contributors and increase the impact with extra processing and saturation. If you push the processing, you will reach the point where you will get a lot of different opinions. Some will like the extra impact; others will believe it is too much. There is not going to be any objective tool which will allow you to push the limits but still remain in the believable realm.



Sep 20, 2013 at 03:20 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Is this believable?


Camperjim wrote:
I don't think this is different than focus, depth of field, or exposure and blending for dynamic range or any other adjustments we made to our images. We have tools such as built in exposure meters to help us but the adjustment of the final product is up to our intentions and decisions.

I think you protest too much. You post some images taken under difficult or unusual lighting. You ask for opinions and comments and then protest when you get them. I liked the old Ben Lite processing from a year or so ago. Then your processing was minimal
...Show more

You hit the problem. Its mostly a social problem and as an old hermit, I don't do well with social problems.

If I make images I like for myself, they will be brighter (in order to print). If I make them with Ben Lite they won't get far. If I try to follow the leaders, I will probably be over processed.

For a while I will try lite for a while and see how it goes.

I just got a nice Mesa Arch, but I don't dare show it. It needs a ton of processing, as do all Mesa Arch sunbrust images. I suppose it will be just for myself.





Sep 20, 2013 at 04:39 PM
1       2      
3
       end




FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password