Wonderful tutorial on Ben's shot, I bookmarked it. Lots of information in there.
On the many different colors of anything at any given time. I thought of water, Jeff. I was thinking of the birds, well anything I know: women who have their hair dyed have learned that hair on one's head is not all one color. Hair stylists are artists themselves with that one.
But I thought of the ocean. The gun metal grey on a gloomy winter day, the bright blue as reflected from a sunny sky. Etc. And the many shades between.
I have studied to be an artist, though my drawing lacks any ability whatsoever. But it sure makes one see things differently. Or it did me. I would be riding with my family noticing the colors. Trees are not green, trees are many different colors.
I will say, in fact, for me, and I really should keep this just to theory, but it probably is theory. The further I am from something, the more the colors blend. Hence, for birders, there are the close up studies of the feather detail, the shades, etc, along with the shadows thrown in. And there are the distance shots, and in those are where I think we get the idea that things are all one color, or another.
In fact, it would help me to be more mindful of my "struggling" artist days of figuring out the many colors that go into making up the whole of any one preconceived color in an object. Or living thing.
And as an artist, it is interesting to give thought as to how I wish to show those colors.
(Then there is the idea that a corner or door frame is straight, always.....huh, but that is another subject.)
And on the other hand, Rutt, I hate to sound like the village idiot here. But ever since I have read to find the "neutral" spot with the eyedropper, or whatever, I have struggled to figure out what "neutral" really means.
I think to even get close to participating intelligently in your question, gosh I hate sounding so dumb, but I would have to know how you mean the term neutral. In fact, what the books mean by the term neutral.
I understand, white, black, in between, I have never found that really. And I don't know what "neutral" is. And, yes, I did read a definition the other day. But I am still confused. Is there a definite never changing meaning to that word, I mean can we all be on the same page with the word, or is it a word that depends on the interpretation.
anon (I really want to know, not trying to be difficult.)
Ginger, it's a good question, but I don't think you'll love my answer. Neutral has a meaning to photoshop for white (actually color) balance. A color is neutral in the RGB color space if R = G = B, that is if it has the same amount of each color. In elegant LAB, the color is neutral if A=0, B=0. The formula for CMYK neutrality is much more complex; let's forget it.
So when you point the WB tool of the PS raw converter at something, you are telling PS to invent some curves that will cause that point to be neutral, i.e., have equal amounts of R,G,&B or A=0, B=0 after conversion.
When I say I neutralized a point, I usually mean that I did something with the LAB curves so that it has A=0, B=0.
I have a feeling that that isn't the kind of answer you were looking for, but if you think about it, you'll realize that it's just exactly what you need to know in order to follow this discussion (and Dan Margulis, for that matter.)
If not now, when?
0
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
edited September 2, 2005
Great thread and very interesting.
My personal belief is when the sun is low in the horizon most people expect a warm color cast and find it pleasing. They know the photo doesn't reflect the mid-day colors but they also find the golden hours lovely.
For example, with this shot I think everyone knows the color of the stones are not that warm, but the fact that they look so warm in the photo makes you wish you were there to see them at sunset:
Rutt the last job on Bens shot is better than the master .I am not experienced enough about the eye dropper to use as neutral adjust. I have used it on a few shots with very nice end results but 80% of the time I start over .I would think there is no way to look and find the sweet spot[for neutral] on an animal to use ,that I mean as a rule of thumb. I have always look at the N as a gray ref. not in terms of white .This does look to much like work and I would rather be out shooting and try and get the thing right in camera .that said this is all very good stuff one day you get a great capture and the shot is just not right Then all this work I would gladly do and your tut has many good points and is very well done .I was able to argue ,think and learn something it is a good day thanks Rutt
Rutt the last job on Bens shot is better than the master .I am not experienced enough about the eye dropper to use as neutral adjust. I have used it on a few shots with very nice end results but 80% of the time I start over .I would think there is no way to look and find the sweet spot[for neutral] on an animal to use ,that I mean as a rule of thumb. I have always look at the N as a gray ref. not in terms of white .This does look to much like work and I would rather be out shooting and try and get the thing right in camera .that said this is all very good stuff one day you get a great capture and the shot is just not right Then all this work I would gladly do and your tut has many good points and is very well done .I was able to argue ,think and learn something it is a good day thanks Rutt
Don't tell anyone, but I have just put the eyedropper, in RAW, PS RAW, not something Nikon, I have put it on the white part of the bird to get rid of color casts, and it has worked quite well.
If I don't like it, I just put it back to as shot, or I move the sliders a bit, no real work, to where I do like it, as in some warm sunset, but not weird.
Don't tell Rutt, though. I don't know why it works on white on a bird, I first did it to get rid of the green cast that was bothering everyone so much. Haven't had a complaint on that score since.
Hey, Chris, thanks for the reply. I didn't realize until this am that you had been in a serious accident so recently. I just wasn't keeping up with everything on dgrin.
I love the National Geographic shot you posted and it illustrates your point well. Do you think the pure white logo at the bottom plays a part in helping to see the warm light in the photograph? I tried covering it up but once I saw it, I don't think I could unsee it.
The mosque (or palace) is a good example. What if there were a face in the picture, though? Do you think it would benefit from a blending treatment similar to the one I gave my portrait? Is flesh very special (Pathfinder and I both speculated about the survival advantages of being able to see it properly in any light?) Of course, human fleshtones are special. Is there anything else like this? Well, we don't like to see green in the sky or red in the grass. Or at least I think we don't.
Comments
On the many different colors of anything at any given time. I thought of water, Jeff. I was thinking of the birds, well anything I know: women who have their hair dyed have learned that hair on one's head is not all one color. Hair stylists are artists themselves with that one.
But I thought of the ocean. The gun metal grey on a gloomy winter day, the bright blue as reflected from a sunny sky. Etc. And the many shades between.
I have studied to be an artist, though my drawing lacks any ability whatsoever. But it sure makes one see things differently. Or it did me. I would be riding with my family noticing the colors. Trees are not green, trees are many different colors.
I will say, in fact, for me, and I really should keep this just to theory, but it probably is theory. The further I am from something, the more the colors blend. Hence, for birders, there are the close up studies of the feather detail, the shades, etc, along with the shadows thrown in. And there are the distance shots, and in those are where I think we get the idea that things are all one color, or another.
In fact, it would help me to be more mindful of my "struggling" artist days of figuring out the many colors that go into making up the whole of any one preconceived color in an object. Or living thing.
And as an artist, it is interesting to give thought as to how I wish to show those colors.
(Then there is the idea that a corner or door frame is straight, always.....huh, but that is another subject.)
ginger
I think to even get close to participating intelligently in your question, gosh I hate sounding so dumb, but I would have to know how you mean the term neutral. In fact, what the books mean by the term neutral.
I understand, white, black, in between, I have never found that really. And I don't know what "neutral" is. And, yes, I did read a definition the other day. But I am still confused. Is there a definite never changing meaning to that word, I mean can we all be on the same page with the word, or is it a word that depends on the interpretation.
anon (I really want to know, not trying to be difficult.)
So when you point the WB tool of the PS raw converter at something, you are telling PS to invent some curves that will cause that point to be neutral, i.e., have equal amounts of R,G,&B or A=0, B=0 after conversion.
When I say I neutralized a point, I usually mean that I did something with the LAB curves so that it has A=0, B=0.
I have a feeling that that isn't the kind of answer you were looking for, but if you think about it, you'll realize that it's just exactly what you need to know in order to follow this discussion (and Dan Margulis, for that matter.)
My personal belief is when the sun is low in the horizon most people expect a warm color cast and find it pleasing. They know the photo doesn't reflect the mid-day colors but they also find the golden hours lovely.
For example, with this shot I think everyone knows the color of the stones are not that warm, but the fact that they look so warm in the photo makes you wish you were there to see them at sunset:
“PHOTOGRAPHY IS THE ‘JAZZ’ FOR THE EYES…”
http://jwear.smugmug.com/
Don't tell anyone, but I have just put the eyedropper, in RAW, PS RAW, not something Nikon, I have put it on the white part of the bird to get rid of color casts, and it has worked quite well.
If I don't like it, I just put it back to as shot, or I move the sliders a bit, no real work, to where I do like it, as in some warm sunset, but not weird.
Don't tell Rutt, though. I don't know why it works on white on a bird, I first did it to get rid of the green cast that was bothering everyone so much. Haven't had a complaint on that score since.
ginger:D
I love the National Geographic shot you posted and it illustrates your point well. Do you think the pure white logo at the bottom plays a part in helping to see the warm light in the photograph? I tried covering it up but once I saw it, I don't think I could unsee it.
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page