Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Image resolution

Subject: Re: [OM] Image resolution
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 13:40:28 -0700
On 5/19/2016 1:02 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
You mean after the problems *you've* discussed using Wratten filters. I'm not sure anyone agreed with you... I certainly didn't. I don't let the camera correct anything. It all happens digitally in ACR. Wratten filters are not required.

My thoughts exactly. I recall the "discussion" as being almost entirely one sided, ChrisT making all sorts of comments, mostly complaints, that mostly made no sense to me, with the occasional demurrer from you, me, and perhaps others.

On 5/19/2016 10:00 AM, Chris Trask wrote:
I'm going to disagree with you on this point. After the problems we've
discussed about using Wratten filters with digital B&W, I'm convinced
that the unavoidable consequences of the camera "correcting" ambient
colour temperature is problematic.

If this is what happens to you, it's operator error, not camera error. The camera will do exactly what you tell it to. If you set it to Auto WB, it will indeed attempt to correct color, often well, sometimes very badly. If you set it to a specific WB, either one of the standard ones, or a custom one you cook up, that's what it will do - every time.

I've resorted to taking the best
possible colour photo, which means correcting with cooling and warming
filters to minimise the camera's interference, then adding the Wratten
filter and converting to B&W in post-processing.

I can't tell what you are saying here. The text seems to read that you use physical filters, fighting with the camera? The harder you pull toward, say, red, the harder it pulls in the other direction?

Then, if you don't win the tug of war before exposure, further correct with 
virtual filters in post?

I agree that ". . . taking the best possible colour photo . . " is the right way. I disagree with what I seem to understand from the above. Try using no physical filters, setting camera WB to daylight, and doing all correction in post. This is dead simple in PS, where the B&W conversion tool presents sliders so adjust how all the primary and secondary colors contribute to the result. You can watch it change as you slide them. You can save profiles for particular subjects/situations for future use.


We had a photo here in the last couple of years that consisted of a
winter scene with snow-covered ground. The snow reflected the clear blue
sky, giving the snow cover a bluish hue rather than being dead white.
This could have been corrected with a warming filter.

AND, it may be "corrected" in Raw conversion or post, more easily and more accurately. I put "corrected" in quotes because this is an example where the camera has correctly captured the colors of the subject, and you happen to dislike that. If there are other objects in the image, people, say, who/which do not reflect the color of the sky in the way the snow does, this solution will change those colors away from accurate.

This seems different to me than the problem of early/late sunlight, tungsten light, etc., where every part of the subject is affected in color, and the filter moves all of them at once toward a different desired color balance.

Un Filtered Moose

--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz