From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Yeah, I thought so. I had to adjust the color quite a bit to get the
> almost violet color out of the side of the mountain, the distant
> mountains and the dirt in front of the church.
When you mentioned the violet color of the side of the mountain, I thought
of this photo. The side of the mountain really was violet, which is why I
took the picture.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1273945
>Notice the sky became an
> actual blue. The problem isn't just lack of saturation, which I did
> increase, but also color balance. I did significant color balance
> changes in both mid and dark tones on the church and mid tones on the
> landscape. Notice how much browner the dirt, mountains, etc. are in the
> adjusted images. It may well be that this is what it actually looks like
> and our eyes adjust to what we 'know' common things look like. Whether
> that's the case or not, you want the slides to look normal.
Like you, I think there is a problem with the actual color balance, not just
saturation. I've put up a couple shots taken at Tiawanaku, an ancient Inca
ruins not too far from La Paz. I think the elevation here is about 13,000
feet. It was a sunny day as usual. You can see the violet color, which,
unlike the previous mountain side, I do not remember seeing when I was
there. Also, the washed out spot in the bottom right of the wall scene I am
attributing to lens flare.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1273955
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1273960
>
> I think the idea others have suggested of trying different, more
> saturated, films is a good one. It also appears that the highest
> blue/low UV light is throwing off the color balance. Other films may be
> better or worse in this regard, but I suspect none will cure it by
> themselves. I think Bill Pearce's advice is probably very good:
Here are a couple more taken at Lake Titicaca, which again I think is about
13,000 feet. In these you can see quite a bit of cloud, which may have been
some help. They don't seem to be as bad in color balance, but still not
quite right imo.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1273963
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1273968
>
> "I ALWAYS use both hood and filter. I NEVER depend on a UV filter, as it
just isn't enough. UV filters don't remove all UV, they just attenuate it to
a
> greater or lesser degree depending on brand. I always use an 81A (the Oly
filter, of which I have several, is an 81C, not a great deal different).
> This will keep the blue under control, but it remains under some
circumstances."
> Moose
Anyways, sorry to all for dragging out this thread, but I do appreciate the
suggestions and help. I think some of my "problem" has been the Kodachrome
64, but also I've been thinking this morning that maybe some of the problem
might have been the Vivitar Zoom not rendering colors right in those
conditions. I remember testing it when I first bought it, against Zuiko
50/1.8, but that was here in St John, NB, which is at about sea level, and
of very colorful subjects, and using E6 film. I couldn't see significant
differences in color then, but may not have been looking close enough. And
again, not using a lens hood I'm sure didn't help.
Thanks,
Wayne
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|