\"you can\'t \'fix\' colour in output\"
I\'m a little perplexed by this statement! All that was fixed in these photos that I presented was white balance and nothing else. Gray balance has everything to do with micro-contrast as far as I can see. Without the proper rendition of the actual color of the scene by white balance, there is essentially no reference to what the lenses actually produced. I really don\'t know what\'s been discussed here about how images should be presented but would be interested in finding out what that is. In this case the camera sensor recorded what was in front of it, a multicolored environment that had basically no gray reference for color or exposure. As you know the sensor will record the color based on the RGB color space that is selected, in this case adobe 98. How each color was recorded is in most cases incorrect no matter what you do at the time of capture as far as I know. If a gray card was used at least one gray tone could be perfectly accurate. Isn\'t it true that the lens transmits light and focuses it on the plane, the way that it transmits that light is determined by the quality of the lens. In this case there was one main light source the sun, some scattered clouds that were changing the color, and a large building in back of me bouncing some light back into the shadows and the environment. This was the furthest thing from a controlled environment there is. In order to be a purist about this and visually judge micro-contrast and micro color the light source and environment has to be totally controlled. This would be something that digital Lloyd\'s tests would show better than this. What I was trying to do essentially was show lens characteristics only, like sharpness and distortion. If it was possible to actually have the lens for a longer period of time in a controlled lighting environment I think one could make judgments about micro-contrast and micro color. The only saving grace that I can see about this environment was the one that Edward pointed out and that was the sign. I personally shoot professionally for many agencies and museums and have just finished a 600 photograph high-end, incredibly well printed book about Asian ceramics. This book is already renowned in the industry as one of the best ever done on this subject. It was done in a controlled environment with studio strobes and still color was a problem. No sensor that I know of is capable of producing accurate and reproducible colors 100% of the time. I can tell you one thing and that is just by looking through the viewfinder I could see the difference in sharpness and contrast of the Zeiss lens compared to the Sigma. The difficult part here was that of justifying the $700 difference between the two lenses as you can see from the examples. All of my clients demand extremely accurate and perfectly rendered digital images, but still they are not under any illusion that in the final output will be correct. You mentioned crack sharpness which is a term I haven\'t heard before but is an interesting one from my perspective seeing that almost every photographer believes they have the sharpest output possible. What really matters in the final image is the perception and feeling that you initially were going after, sometimes that requires sharpness other times it does not. What I show here can only be used as a rough
reference at best. If more is expected of me It will cost you. I look forward to seeing your images and how they reproduce color and lens characteristics so I can learn from them. I very much enjoy the exchange of ideas, but images are more educational than anything. I still remember vividly what micro contrast looked like on an 8X10 sheet of film shot on a $6000 Rodenstock APO lens and I very seldom see it on anything digital.
