Nanh wrote: turnstyle wrote:
Why would the somewhat different lighting between pairs of comparative shots consistently result in darker, pinker corners for the A7r -- in photos from two totally different people?
I don\'t mean for that to sound snarky, I hope it doesn\'t!
I defer to a ton of amazing expertise here, but my eyes seem to keep telling me a different story?
Isn\'t it just an overall difference in white balance? Are you sure it\'s just the corner that\'s more pinkish?
+1 @ this ^^ as a piece of the puzzle.
I also see an overall difference in color and luminance rather than a \"corner issue\". (see crops)
Both cameras were set to Auto for WB. Given the two very different colors of lighting, the amount of adjustment being applied could be 1) applying more warmth to the cool soft lighting 2) applying more gamma to try and get the scene to have white/black points closer setpoints of (x,x,x) and (y,y,y).
The amount of change being applied to a low contrast cool light is different from the amount of change being applied to a high contrast white light. This is part of why I never shoot Auto WB. I\'d rather know that I shot the image at a given temperature (say 5500K) and then make my own adjustments to gamma/color after assessing which lighting my subject was being illuminated with.
Illuminating a neutral subject with a soft cool light will require adding warmth to render that subject neutral. Illuminating a neutral subject with a specular warm light will require cooling it to render it neutral. Pretty basic color theory stuff in concept but when you recognize that the camera is trying to make decisions on \"how much\" to apply and just like a camera can be \"fooled\" or \"slightly off\" @ applying too much or too little exposure from a given subject/lighting combination ... so too can it apply color adjustments that are slightly off. The camera is making certain assumptions about your lighting and subject (based on the programming).
Shooting in different lighting with different color and different contrast levels is going to have the camera trying to bring each image to what it is assuming to be \"most correct\" based on its \"read\" of the scene\'s starting point. For that reason, I would be judicious about putting too much information from images shot in different lighting conditions at how two different cameras handle them via AWB. A camera making global adjustments from its read of the \"important areas\" in mixed lighting may render one portion of the scene \"correct\" while applying an overcompensating effect for a different area.
Looking at the circled areas, we know that the subject is the same color. Yet the two images are vastly different, both in color balance and in luminance values. If this portion of the scene is this vastly different, why wouldn\'t the corners also be different. This isn\'t the camera being different, it is the response to vastly different lighting. Judging corners and color shift from lighting that is THAT different doesn\'t bode well, imo, for making meaningful comparative assessments.
Casual observance of the image might seem like the two images were of the same scene, but the lighting is significantly different. Realizing that everything is energy/light from origin to atmosphere to subject reflectance to pass through the lens, to microlens / sensor ... the only way to really compare two diff sensors response is to have the other aspects be the same. While the lens was the same and the subject was the same ... the lighting was very different, thus two variables @ camera (sensor/response) and lighting. These two cameras did NOT receive the same optically projected image ... thus, how can you make any objective comparative analysis between the two.when you absolutely know that they received different projected images onto them.
Nanh wrote: turnstyle wrote:
Why would the somewhat different lighting between pairs of comparative shots consistently result in darker, pinker corners for the A7r -- in photos from two totally different people?
I don\'t mean for that to sound snarky, I hope it doesn\'t!
I defer to a ton of amazing expertise here, but my eyes seem to keep telling me a different story?
Isn\'t it just an overall difference in white balance? Are you sure it\'s just the corner that\'s more pinkish?
I also see an overall difference in color and luminance rather than a \"corner issue\". (see crops)
Both cameras were set to Auto for WB. Given the two very different colors of lighting, the amount of adjustment being applied could be 1) applying more warmth to the cool soft lighting 2) applying more gamma to try and get the scene to have white/black points closer setpoints of (x,x,x) and (y,y,y).
The amount of change being applied to a low contrast cool light is different from the amount of change being applied to a high contrast white light. This is part of why I never shoot Auto WB. I\'d rather know that I shot the image at a given temperature (say 5500K) and then make my own adjustments to gamma/color after assessing which lighting my subject was being illuminated with.
Illuminating a neutral subject with a soft cool light will require adding warmth to render that subject neutral. Illuminating a neutral subject with a specular warm light will require cooling it to render it neutral. Pretty basic color theory stuff in concept but when you recognize that the camera is trying to make decisions on \"how much\" to apply and just like a camera can be \"fooled\" or \"slightly off\" @ applying too much or too little exposure from a given subject/lighting combination ... so too can it apply color adjustments that are slightly off. The camera is making certain assumptions about your lighting and subject (based on the programming).
Shooting in different lighting with different color and different contrast levels is going to have the camera trying to bring each image to what it is assuming to be \"most correct\" based on its \"read\" of the scene\'s starting point. For that reason, I would be judicious about putting too much information from images shot in different lighting conditions at how two different cameras handle them via AWB. A camera making global adjustments from its read of the \"important areas\" in mixed lighting may render one portion of the scene \"correct\" while applying an overcompensating effect for a different area.
Looking at the circled areas, we know that the subject is the same color. Yet the two images are vastly different, both in color balance and in luminance values. If this portion of the scene is this vastly different, why wouldn\'t the corners also be different. This isn\'t the camera being different, it is the response to vastly different lighting. Judging corners and color shift from lighting that is THAT different doesn\'t bode well, imo, for making meaningful comparative assessments.
Casual observance of the image might seem like the two images were of the same scene, but the lighting is significantly different. Realizing that everything is energy/light from origin to atmosphere to subject reflectance to pass through the lens, to microlens / sensor ... the only way to really compare two diff sensors response is to have the other aspects be the same. While the lens was the same and the subject was the same ... the lighting was very different, thus two variables @ camera (sensor/response) and lighting. These two cameras did NOT receive the same optically projected image ... thus, how can you make any objective comparative analysis between the two.when you absolutely know that they received different projected images onto them.
Nanh wrote: turnstyle wrote:
Why would the somewhat different lighting between pairs of comparative shots consistently result in darker, pinker corners for the A7r -- in photos from two totally different people?
I don\'t mean for that to sound snarky, I hope it doesn\'t!
I defer to a ton of amazing expertise here, but my eyes seem to keep telling me a different story?
Isn\'t it just an overall difference in white balance? Are you sure it\'s just the corner that\'s more pinkish?
I also see an overall difference in color and luminance rather than a \"corner issue\". (see crops)
Both cameras were set to Auto for WB. Given the two very different colors of lighting, the amount of adjustment being applied could be 1) applying more warmth to the cool soft lighting 2) applying more gamma to try and get the scene to have white/black points closer setpoints of (x,x,x) and (y,y,y).
The amount of change being applied to a low contrast cool light is different from the amount of change being applied to a high contrast white light. This is part of why I never shoot Auto WB. I\'d rather know that I shot the image at a given temperature (say 5500K) and then make my own adjustments to gamma/color after assessing which lighting my subject was being illuminated with.
Illuminating a neutral subject with a soft cool light will require adding warmth to render that subject neutral. Illuminating a neutral subject with a specular warm light will require cooling it to render it neutral. Pretty basic color theory stuff in concept but when you recognize that the camera is trying to make decisions on \"how much\" to apply and just like a camera can be \"fooled\" or \"slightly off\" @ applying too much or too little exposure from a given subject/lighting combination ... so too can it apply color adjustments that are slightly off. The camera is making certain assumptions about your lighting and subject (based on the programming).
Shooting in different lighting with different color and different contrast levels is going to have the camera trying to bring each image to what it is assuming to be \"most correct\" based on its \"read\" of the scene\'s starting point. For that reason, I would be judicious about putting too much information from images shot in different lighting conditions at how two different cameras handle them via AWB. A camera making global adjustments from its read of the \"important areas\" in mixed lighting may render one portion of the scene \"correct\" while applying an overcompensating effect for a different area.
Looking at the circled areas, we know that the subject is the same color. Yet the two images are vastly different, both in color balance and in luminance values. If this portion of the scene is this vastly different, why wouldn\'t the corners also be different. This isn\'t the camera being different, it is the response to vastly different lighting.
Nanh wrote: turnstyle wrote:
Why would the somewhat different lighting between pairs of comparative shots consistently result in darker, pinker corners for the A7r -- in photos from two totally different people?
I don\'t mean for that to sound snarky, I hope it doesn\'t!
I defer to a ton of amazing expertise here, but my eyes seem to keep telling me a different story?
Isn\'t it just an overall difference in white balance? Are you sure it\'s just the corner that\'s more pinkish?
I also see an overall difference in color and luminance rather than a \"corner issue\". (see crops)
Both cameras were set to Auto for WB. Given the two very different colors of lighting, the amount of adjustment being applied could be 1) applying more warmth to the cool soft lighting 2) applying more gamma to try and get the scene to have white/black points closer setpoints of (x,x,x) and (y,y,y).
The amount of change being applied to a low contrast cool light is different from the amount of change being applied to a high contrast white light. This is part of why I never shoot Auto WB. I\'d rather know that I shot the image at a given temperature (say 5500K) and then make my own adjustments to gamma/color after assessing which lighting my subject was being illuminated with.
Illuminating a neutral subject with a soft cool light will require adding warmth to render that subject neutral. Illuminating a neutral subject with a specular warm light will require cooling it to render it neutral. Pretty basic color theory stuff in concept but when you recognize that the camera is trying to make decisions on \"how much\" to apply and just like a camera can be \"fooled\" or \"slightly off\" @ applying too much or too little exposure from a given subject/lighting combination ... so too can it apply color adjustments that are slightly off. The camera is making certain assumptions about your lighting and subject (based on the programming).
Shooting in different lighting with different color and different contrast levels is going to have the camera trying to bring each image to what it is assuming to be \"most correct\" based on its \"read\" of the scene\'s starting point. For that reason, I would be judicious about putting too much information from images shot in different lighting conditions at how two different cameras handle them via AWB. A camera making global adjustments from its read of the \"important areas\" in mixed lighting may render one portion of the scene \"correct\" while applying an overcompensating effect for a different area.
Nanh wrote: turnstyle wrote:
Why would the somewhat different lighting between pairs of comparative shots consistently result in darker, pinker corners for the A7r -- in photos from two totally different people?
I don\'t mean for that to sound snarky, I hope it doesn\'t!
I defer to a ton of amazing expertise here, but my eyes seem to keep telling me a different story?
Isn\'t it just an overall difference in white balance? Are you sure it\'s just the corner that\'s more pinkish?
I also see an overall difference in color and luminance rather than a \"corner issue\". (see crops)
Both cameras were set to Auto for WB. Given the two very different colors of lighting, the amount of adjustment being applied could be 1) applying more warmth to the cool soft lighting 2) applying more gamma to try and get the scene to have white/black points closer setpoints of (x,x,x) and (y,y,y).
The amount of change being applied to a low contrast cool light is different from the amount of change being applied to a high contrast white light. This is part of why I never shoot Auto WB. I\'d rather know that I shot the image at a given temperature (say 5500K) and then make my own adjustments to gamma/color after assessing which lighting my subject was being illuminated with.
Illuminating a neutral subject with a soft cool light will require adding warmth to render that subject neutral. Illuminating a neutral subject with a specular warm light will require cooling it to render it neutral. Pretty basic color theory stuff in concept but when you recognize that the camera is trying to make decisions on \"how much\" to apply and just like a camera can be \"fooled\" or \"slightly off\" @ applying too much or too little exposure from a given subject/lighting combination ... so too can it apply color adjustments that are slightly off. The camera is making certain assumptions about your lighting and subject (based on the programming).
Shooting in different lighting with different color and different contrast levels is going to have the camera trying to bring each image to what it is assuming to be \"most correct\" based on its \"read\" of the scene\'s starting point. For that reason, I would be judicious about putting too much information from images shot in different lighting conditions at how two different cameras handle them via AWB. A camera making global adjustments from its read of the \"important areas\" in mixed lighting may render one portion of the scene \"correct\" while applying an overcompensating effect for a different area.
Nanh wrote: turnstyle wrote:
Why would the somewhat different lighting between pairs of comparative shots consistently result in darker, pinker corners for the A7r -- in photos from two totally different people?
I don\'t mean for that to sound snarky, I hope it doesn\'t!
I defer to a ton of amazing expertise here, but my eyes seem to keep telling me a different story?
Isn\'t it just an overall difference in white balance? Are you sure it\'s just the corner that\'s more pinkish?
I also see an overall difference in color and luminance rather than a \"corner issue\". (see crops)
Both cameras were set to Auto for WB. Given the two very different colors of lighting, the amount of adjustment being applied could be 1) applying more warmth to the cool soft lighting 2) applying more gamma to try and get the scene to have white/black points closer setpoints of (x,x,x) and (y,y,y).
The amount of change being applied to a low contrast cool light is different from the amount of change being applied to a high contrast white light. This is part of why I never shoot Auto WB. I\'d rather know that I shot the image at a given temperature (say 5500K) and then make my own adjustments to gamma/color after assessing which lighting my subject was being illuminated with.
Illuminating a neutral subject with a soft cool light will require adding warmth to render that subject neutral. Illuminating a neutral subject with a specular warm light will require cooling it to render it neutral. Pretty basic color theory stuff in concept but when you recognize that the camera is trying to make decisions on \"how much\" to apply and just like a camera can be \"fooled\" or \"slightly off\" @ applying too much or too little exposure from a given subject/lighting combination ... so too can it apply color adjustments that are slightly off. The camera is making certain assumptions about your lighting and subject (based on the programming).
Shooting in different lighting with different color and different contrast levels is going to have the camera trying to bring each image to what it is assuming to be \"most correct\" based on its \"read\" of the scene\'s starting point. For that reason, I would be judicious about putting too much information from images shot in different lighting conditions at how two different cameras handle them via AWB. A camera making global adjustments from its read of the \"important areas\" in mixed lighting may render one portion of the scene \"correct\" while applying an overcompensating effect for a different area.
Dec 04, 2013 at 07:55 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11978038 « A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses »
