Ragged Glory

Wicked_Dark

It never ceases to amaze me the lack of true color rendering in digital cameras with certain subjects. This flower isn't pink (it's a very dark cyclamen, almost red), but the camera thinks it is. I liked it anyway so left it uncorrected. Shot with the E-30, OM legacy 90mm f2 macro on ISO 100 at about f5.6.



Anyway...thanks for checking it out. Comments welcome.

Lord Vetinari

LIke the shot anyway
A little bothered by the in focus wood on the left side - my eye keeps going to it.
Brian v.

Wicked_Dark

Thanks for the comment. I am still not sure about that bit of wood either. It's in the same plane as the center of the flower and so it's in focus, too. Maybe I should crop it out.

basflt

or blur it , rather then cropping

NeilL

Shooting a custom WB should correct the color (for really best results use a light meter too).

Neil

paddler4

I like it as well.

I'd crop the wood.

I disagree with Neil L. Custom WB only matters if you are shooting JPEG, and i would never shoot serious flower shots (or any serious shots, for that matter) in JPEG. I would shoot raw and do one shot, in the same light, with a good gray card. That will make it trivially easy to get a good white balance (which you can alter at will anyway), and you will have all of the other many advantages of raw. If a correct WB does not do the trick, then you have a harder problem, but you can fiddle with both saturation and luminance by color channel to try to get the color more like what it should be (again, easier in raw).

basflt

^^^^
i agree
i have the same issue , with same color

no problem and easy to correct

NeilL

paddler4 wrote: »

I like it as well.

I'd crop the wood.

I disagree with Neil L. Custom WB only matters if you are shooting JPEG, and i would never shoot serious flower shots (or any serious shots, for that matter) in JPEG. I would shoot raw and do one shot, in the same light, with a good gray card. That will make it trivially easy to get a good white balance (which you can alter at will anyway), and you will have all of the other many advantages of raw. If a correct WB does not do the trick, then you have a harder problem, but you can fiddle with both saturation and luminance by color channel to try to get the color more like what it should be (again, easier in raw).

Not quite sure where you are with WB and jpgs here. I was thinking of RAW, and shooting a gray card, and then choosing Custom WB balance in the Menu (Canon 40D), and setting it using the gray card just shot as the reference.

Neil

paddler4

NeilL wrote: »

Not quite sure where you are with WB and jpgs here. I was thinking of RAW, and shooting a gray card, and then choosing Custom WB balance in the Menu (Canon 40D), and setting it using the gray card just shot as the reference.

Neil

I think I misunderstood what you were suggesting. I thought you were suggesting using CWB to get the camera to develop the JPEG correctly, not to get the raw processing software to give a correct initial "as shot" reading. It seems easier to me not to fuss with custom WB and just to use the gray surface to find WB in software, but whatever works...

NeilL

paddler4 wrote: »

I think I misunderstood what you were suggesting. I thought you were suggesting using CWB to get the camera to develop the JPEG correctly, not to get the raw processing software to give a correct initial "as shot" reading. It seems easier to me not to fuss with custom WB and just to use the gray surface to find WB in software, but whatever works...

Yeah, 6 o' one and 1/2 doz of the other! But WB is one adjustment I do prefer to do at ground level, so to speak. You've got to have some WB after all, so why not start with accurate, rather than mess with the pixels again?

Neil

Wicked_Dark

I do shoot in raw format all the time and yeah a white balance change would probably render this more accurately, but like I said, I was startled and weirdly pleased by how the digital sensor translated what it saw. I find that auto white balance is good for just about everything except extremes in wildflower color. Let me take a stab at a realistic interpretation tomorrow.

NeilL

Wicked_Dark wrote: »

I do shoot in raw format all the time and yeah a white balance change would probably render this more accurately, but like I said, I was startled and weirdly pleased by how the digital sensor translated what it saw. I find that auto white balance is good for just about everything except extremes in wildflower color. Let me take a stab at a realistic interpretation tomorrow.

Yeah, and with flowers there's often exotic radiation (eg ultraviolet) and fluorescence accosting the sensor pixels, to what effect, who knows? And did you say you used an Oly? Well, their sensors take some poetic licence.

Neil

Wicked_Dark

actually other than certain flowers there's no poetic license to be had. Raw is raw pretty much for all mfgs, it's jpeg engines that differ greatly. Anyway, I'm working on it now trying to see how to bring it to what human eyes see....at least these human eyes.