Becuase, there are other threads and discussions in the Dig Darkroom, Software Forum, where we discuss color corrections in post processing, and the ways in which it can be done.
Becuause many new Dads will buy a dslr for the first time, when SWMBO is with child, and he wants to get it just right, even in the heat of the moment when the newborn is "fresh from the oven!" No posing, no lights no nothing.
Ways in which today's cameras may be set for optimal jpg processing.
Becuase, there are other threads and discussions in the Dig Darkroom, Software Forum, where we discuss color corrections in post processing, and the ways in which it can be done.
Becuause many new Dads will buy a dslr for the first time, when SWMBO is with child, and he wants to get it just right, even in the heat of the moment when the newborn is "fresh from the oven!" No posing, no lights no nothing.
Ways in which today's cameras may be set for optimal jpg processing.
And, some fodder for the near-infrared issue.
Good enough reasons. I think the last issue is the most compelling and we are definitely learning something from it.
But let's put outselves in the place of the proud new dad with the new dSLR. Odds are he has barely had a chance to read the instructions, let alone this thread. Odds are he's got a rebel or a 20D and is going to use the on-camera flash. Odds are he doesn't have the fastest lens in the word. Then he goes and takes shots in a true once in a lifetime situation and ends up with something he's more than likely to throw away. Is that the situation, Andy?
Good enough reasons. I think the last issue is the most compelling and we are definitely learning something from it.
But let's put outselves in the place of the proud new dad with the new dSLR. Odds are he has barely had a chance to read the instructions, let alone this thread. Odds are he's got a rebel or a 20D and is going to use the on-camera flash. Odds are he doesn't have the fastest lens in the word. Then he goes and takes shots in a true once in a lifetime situation and ends up with something he's more than likely to throw away. Is that the situation, Andy?
Yup - but there's not much we can do for the guy that won't read up, or learn, in advance....
Yup - but there's not much we can do for the guy that won't read up, or learn, in advance....
Actually, that's my point. We can fix in post. We can make that really really easy. We could make a PS action. We could make a standalone app. We could build it into smugmug.
I love the info about IR filters and why these pictures actually turn out so bad. But it's information for advanced photographers, not for the poor fella with newborn and new camera. That guy needs easy fixes in post. (Easier than my usual, I admit.)
That guy needs easy fixes in post. (Easier than my usual, I admit.)
Nope - he doesn't. You missed the earlier part of the discussion. Long night - difficult labor- bam - new baby - click click click - Mom and baby resting, Grandma stays with Mom - dad goes home to shower and guess what - upload his photos to SmugMug so he can share with the family
And the majority of these new dads with new cameras won't have Photoshop, they may have elements or PSP or similar, but 90% won't have a clue how to use it for these fixes, and nearly 100% of them will appreciate some kind of out-of-camera result that's share-worthy immediately.
Think: parameter settings; sure filter is nice, but that's tough, too - different lens thread sizes, etc. How about a flash gel? Even better, how about a custom picture style like the 5D has, make a "newborn baby" style. These are photoshop actions in-camera. Custom curves in the Nikon-world.
***********************
Mmmm Mmmm the smells coming from my kitchen are amazing right now. Stuffing. Squash soup. Homemade bread. Of course Tom the Turkey.
***********************
So Rutt - this is killing you, becuase you're a darkroom rat and Photoshop Guru - but I'm wanting to apply your skill in a different manner - and I know you can help!
Nope - he doesn't. You missed the earlier part of the discussion. Long night - difficult labor- bam - new baby - click click click - Mom and baby resting, Grandma stays with Mom - dad goes home to shower and guess what - upload his photos to SmugMug so he can share with the family
... and they look terrible. So he clicks on the smugmug "make my baby look good button" and the problem is solved and he can go happily on. Don't you think that's the happiest possible ending of this story? And here is the best part, it's happy for smugmug as well as the dad.
Anyway, I'll stop now. As I said above, the topic is interesting. But anything short of something similar to what I just described isn't helping this particular guy.
... and they look terrible. So he clicks on the smugmug "make my baby look good button" and the problem is solved and he can go happily on. Don't you think that's the happiest possible ending of this story? And here is the best part, it's happy for smugmug as well as the dad.
Anyway, I'll stop now. As I said above, the topic is interesting. But anything short of something similar to what I just described isn't helping this particular guy.
Ahh you hit on something else we'd like to look into also! But I we'll see what the research proves out. Thanks for contributing your knowledge!
I wish this thread came out a bit sooner. This was right from camera with no post done. The setting was auto exposure/shutter speed/WB Iso 800 with -.33 ev. I was pretty happy with it. I think if you get the exposure and WB as close to perfect as possible it is the most important thing . Someone can burst my bubble and tell me if it is way off.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone..
0
Options
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
Finally, an explanation for this shot, which I took years ago with my Canon G5.
I've gotten so I can spot them at a glance, unfortunately, because I go through life tortured by the new digital look to fair skin tones, especially newborns and people with blemishes, surface veins, sunburn...
My wife has a G5 and it produces the flash shots of death.
Ahh you hit on something else we'd like to look into also! But I we'll see what the research proves out. Thanks for contributing your knowledge!
I was thinking. What does that automatic photo correction tool that smugmug uses for prints, i2e, do with the newborn? With DavidTO's? I tried to get a trial version, but no windows machines sitting around to try it on. Could this be the "make my baby look good" button?
If not now, when?
0
Options
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
Unfortunately, when an IR-sensitive subject like a newborn is awash in IR and your chip captures it, you can correct to limit the damage and partly restore it, but in my experience it's never the same as if it was captured well in the first place. Here's the magenta channel in that baby shot:
It's not just a matter of applying curves, it's also about why some regions are nearly pegged and a few pixels away it's a whole different story. You notice how even when this shot was converted to B&W earlier in this threaad it was very blotchy.
Consumer after consumer tell us, "my baby didn't look like your prints" (or Kodak's, or Costco's...). My baby was a little blotchy, yes, but that's rediculous.
And they're right, because their eyes don't see near infrared, which your chip records to some degree but film didn't. The areas of intense near infrared reflection are the red blotches, which makes them so much more acute than they were in real life.
You can watch that channel as you adjust curves to make it look natural and even if you're a Photoshop black belt, most people are left saying, "that looks better but..."
You can watch that channel as you adjust curves to make it look natural and even if you're a Photoshop black belt, most people are left saying, "that looks better but..."
Thanks, Chris. I played a little and I see what you mean. Of course, there would be some solution, but maybe not an easy one and maybe not one you could attach to a button. Well, there's always outsourcing to Sri Lanka, but short of that.
I might stew on it. But I suppose one "in camera" cheap and easy solution is to use film of some sort which isn't supposed to have this problem.
Chris, can someone send you a disposible camera and end up with the results in his/her smugmug account? What would have to happen for that to be an OK business?
Chris, can someone send you a disposible camera and end up with the results in his/her smugmug account? What would have to happen for that to be an OK business?
If we were into film, and had developing systems, that also digitized in-line, well then the results could get into a SmugMug account. I can't imagine that this would be a profitable endeavor - not when every CVS, RiteAid, Duane Reade, Costco, BJ's, Walmart, and Ritz shop have a film station. But the good news is that these places do the film stuff, and create a CD bang bang no problemo, for a few bucks. Easy enough to upload those shots, eh?
I wish this thread came out a bit sooner. This was right from camera with no post done. The setting was auto exposure/shutter speed/WB Iso 800 with -.33 ev. I was pretty happy with it. I think if you get the exposure and WB as close to perfect as possible it is the most important thing . Someone can burst my bubble and tell me if it is way off.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone..
Eric,
Did you shoot this with your D2X? If so, this discussion may prove very interesting. The D2X has a very strong IR filter. I know this from my research into buying an IR filter. The D2X is worthless as an IR camera unless it is professionally modified. Apparently, the D70 has a very weak IR filter. I was strongly advised to use my D70 as my IR camera with the IR72 filter.
Perhaps we would all be better served to find out the actual IR ratings of our cameras. This may explain why my D2X blows away my D70 when comparing skin tones out of the camera. Almost no PP needed with the D2X!
Eric,
Did you shoot this with your D2X? If so, this discussion may prove very interesting. The D2X has a very strong IR filter. I know this from my research into buying an IR filter. The D2X is worthless as an IR camera unless it is professionally modified. Apparently, the D70 has a very weak IR filter. I was strongly advised to use my D70 as my IR camera with the IR72 filter.
Perhaps we would all be better served to find out the actual IR ratings of our cameras. This may explain why my D2X blows away my D70 when comparing skin tones out of the camera. Almost no PP needed with the D2X![/QUOTE
Yes D2x right out of camera. I know nothing about its Ir rating but I do know that the D100 is similiar to the D70 for Ir I have mine sitting in a box waiting for me to get off my arse and send it to get modified..
Do most colors stay the same as you would expect, and it just corrects those problem shots?
Like all filters, there is added potential for glare in very adverse conditions (and with B&W coatings I'd even say very very very adverse conditions).[/quote]
Thierry
Eric,
Did you shoot this with your D2X? If so, this discussion may prove very interesting. The D2X has a very strong IR filter.
Only in front of the image sensor, though. Meaning white balance sensor, meter and AF sensor (yes ! UV in particular can deceive an AF sensor and lead to focusing errors) are all affected.
Thierry
0
Options
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
Baldy has said some lenses are better corrected for IR than others. If I remember correctly, I think the 24-70 L is supposed to have more IR filtering built into it than some of Canon's older lenses. With film, it was not an issue since film was generally not sensitive to IR
As far as I know, most lenses only stop UVs (except for a narrow band near the visible, but that's enough to be a problem given the proper lighting conditions). I've never heard of IR filtering on a lens.
My understanding is that Canon dSLRs have quite strong IR filters in front of their CMOS sensors, as anybody who has tried doing IR photography with these cameras have noticed.
How do you assess the strength of your built-in IR filter? How do you know that it's weak on the D70? How is it on the 20D?
A simple way is to add an IR filter (meaning one that lets only IR through and stops visible light) in front of the lens and see if any light comes through with a long exposure.
IR photography is very doable with a D70. My understanding is that it is not with a 20D.
Plus, consider this. The IR filter addresses the near IR problem, which is generally a problem for skin tones, and not other areas of the image.
IR "pollution" is very treacherous, because IR reflectance is about as predictible than any other color. If I hide say a flower in my hands and ask what color it is, can you tell ? IR reflectance is about as guess-able than the color of the flower which you've never seen.
I've been seen countless pictures on the Nikon D70 DPreview forum where hues have that "muddy" "broken" hues, on top of that colors are undersaturated (an issue with UV as well), etc. Vegetation 's greens, for instance, seem to come from some cheap camera loaded with cheap film - if that - etc.
And if you try to correct - whether curves in LAB space or any other technique you know - you face the problem that IR reflectance varies from one surface to another: it is not uniform. You may restore the grass's greens, for instance, but end up with say the leaves of a tree with a green that are clearly too saturated and look very artificial. The pic is a mess, and will require much more than one mask and one curve to be restored.
IMO a heat filter like the B+W486 is basically a must have with a camera like the D70 - or many of your pictures won't get the "wow" that you'd expect.
The link to the filter on the B&H site, listed above, showed with and without the filter, and the difference was more than you are describing. Green tree leaves were orange with the filter.
Never, and I mean never never, and I really mean never never never, in fact I mean never never never never - well you get the idea - pay any consideration to the pictures "with" and "without" filters that B&H posts on its web site when browsing for a filter.
That's because at least one of the images "without" or "with" filter have never (that word again) been taken (we don't know which one).
If you look carefully at the images, B&H recognizes this fact by speculating that it is "a simulated image". One of the pic is pure Photoshop work, and may say something about the imagination of the person who has made them, but say nothing about what the filters do.
I've used B+W486 filter for quite a long time, have done a fair amount of comparison with and without in various lighting situations and diverse scenery, and I have yet to see one example that even remotedly resembles what B&H shows in its web site (greens that turn orange with filter on !). Either the leaves were really orange, the pic with filter is genuine, but then the pic without filter if it had really been taken would have never shown the leaves as green (remember: IR by itself is seen as purplish by the camera: take a pic of an IR remote and see for yourself). Or the pic without filter is real, but the IR filter would not have turned them into orange !
Don't take me wrong: B&H is a great store - I've just advertised one of their sales - and has been on occasion the only place where I could find a "specialized" item, but these pics that B&H posts are deceptive and B&H should removed them, even the deception is not intended, as I'm sure is the case.
Thierry
0
Options
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
I've used B+W486 filter for quite a long time, have done a fair amount of comparison with and without in various lighting situations and diverse scenery, and I have yet to see one example that even remotedly resembles what B&H shows in its web site (greens that turn orange with filter on !).
For the life of me, I could not understand why a filter that cuts IR and UV only would have any dramatic effectt on visible light, like the picture of the orange leaves in the B&H on-line catalog. : But i've not used it so I wasn't absolutely certain. Maybe a worth while addition to a kit.
Hi Folks,
Any comment on the strength of the IR filter in rebelxt/350d ? Googling didn't find me much.
I know that the IR filter in the older rebel 300d is quite strong.
The paradox in making these filters is to remove IR efficiently - obviously - while maintaining neutrality in the visible spectrum and avoiding visible light absorption (or that would come at the expense of the camera ISO rating). Finally the filter must be cheap to make. It seems that Canon knows to make these filters better than its competitors, and I don't see why they would not have used their advantage in the 350D.
Comments
Yes, it is. Remember, the point of this post was to look for ways at shoot, not in post.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Dang. Yep - that's it.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I got that. But why?
Becuase, there are other threads and discussions in the Dig Darkroom, Software Forum, where we discuss color corrections in post processing, and the ways in which it can be done.
Becuause many new Dads will buy a dslr for the first time, when SWMBO is with child, and he wants to get it just right, even in the heat of the moment when the newborn is "fresh from the oven!" No posing, no lights no nothing.
Ways in which today's cameras may be set for optimal jpg processing.
And, some fodder for the near-infrared issue.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Good enough reasons. I think the last issue is the most compelling and we are definitely learning something from it.
But let's put outselves in the place of the proud new dad with the new dSLR. Odds are he has barely had a chance to read the instructions, let alone this thread. Odds are he's got a rebel or a 20D and is going to use the on-camera flash. Odds are he doesn't have the fastest lens in the word. Then he goes and takes shots in a true once in a lifetime situation and ends up with something he's more than likely to throw away. Is that the situation, Andy?
Yup - but there's not much we can do for the guy that won't read up, or learn, in advance....
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Actually, that's my point. We can fix in post. We can make that really really easy. We could make a PS action. We could make a standalone app. We could build it into smugmug.
I love the info about IR filters and why these pictures actually turn out so bad. But it's information for advanced photographers, not for the poor fella with newborn and new camera. That guy needs easy fixes in post. (Easier than my usual, I admit.)
Nope - he doesn't. You missed the earlier part of the discussion. Long night - difficult labor- bam - new baby - click click click - Mom and baby resting, Grandma stays with Mom - dad goes home to shower and guess what - upload his photos to SmugMug so he can share with the family
And the majority of these new dads with new cameras won't have Photoshop, they may have elements or PSP or similar, but 90% won't have a clue how to use it for these fixes, and nearly 100% of them will appreciate some kind of out-of-camera result that's share-worthy immediately.
Think: parameter settings; sure filter is nice, but that's tough, too - different lens thread sizes, etc. How about a flash gel?
***********************
Mmmm Mmmm the smells coming from my kitchen are amazing right now. Stuffing. Squash soup. Homemade bread. Of course Tom the Turkey.
***********************
So Rutt - this is killing you, becuase you're a darkroom rat and Photoshop Guru - but I'm wanting to apply your skill in a different manner - and I know you can help!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
... and they look terrible. So he clicks on the smugmug "make my baby look good button" and the problem is solved and he can go happily on. Don't you think that's the happiest possible ending of this story? And here is the best part, it's happy for smugmug as well as the dad.
Anyway, I'll stop now. As I said above, the topic is interesting. But anything short of something similar to what I just described isn't helping this particular guy.
Ahh you hit on something else we'd like to look into also! But I we'll see what the research proves out. Thanks for contributing your knowledge!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Happy Thanksgiving everyone..
My wife has a G5 and it produces the flash shots of death.
I was thinking. What does that automatic photo correction tool that smugmug uses for prints, i2e, do with the newborn? With DavidTO's? I tried to get a trial version, but no windows machines sitting around to try it on. Could this be the "make my baby look good" button?
It's not just a matter of applying curves, it's also about why some regions are nearly pegged and a few pixels away it's a whole different story. You notice how even when this shot was converted to B&W earlier in this threaad it was very blotchy.
Consumer after consumer tell us, "my baby didn't look like your prints" (or Kodak's, or Costco's...). My baby was a little blotchy, yes, but that's rediculous.
And they're right, because their eyes don't see near infrared, which your chip records to some degree but film didn't. The areas of intense near infrared reflection are the red blotches, which makes them so much more acute than they were in real life.
You can watch that channel as you adjust curves to make it look natural and even if you're a Photoshop black belt, most people are left saying, "that looks better but..."
Thanks, Chris. I played a little and I see what you mean. Of course, there would be some solution, but maybe not an easy one and maybe not one you could attach to a button. Well, there's always outsourcing to Sri Lanka, but short of that.
I might stew on it. But I suppose one "in camera" cheap and easy solution is to use film of some sort which isn't supposed to have this problem.
Chris, can someone send you a disposible camera and end up with the results in his/her smugmug account? What would have to happen for that to be an OK business?
If we were into film, and had developing systems, that also digitized in-line, well then the results could get into a SmugMug account. I can't imagine that this would be a profitable endeavor - not when every CVS, RiteAid, Duane Reade, Costco, BJ's, Walmart, and Ritz shop have a film station. But the good news is that these places do the film stuff, and create a CD bang bang no problemo, for a few bucks. Easy enough to upload those shots, eh?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Did you shoot this with your D2X? If so, this discussion may prove very interesting. The D2X has a very strong IR filter. I know this from my research into buying an IR filter. The D2X is worthless as an IR camera unless it is professionally modified. Apparently, the D70 has a very weak IR filter. I was strongly advised to use my D70 as my IR camera with the IR72 filter.
Perhaps we would all be better served to find out the actual IR ratings of our cameras. This may explain why my D2X blows away my D70 when comparing skin tones out of the camera. Almost no PP needed with the D2X!
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Thierry
Thierry
A good start would be to measure the light output of various flashes with a spectrophotometer. Anyone have access to one?
Edit: Looking at this, it looks like I have one!
My understanding is that Canon dSLRs have quite strong IR filters in front of their CMOS sensors, as anybody who has tried doing IR photography with these cameras have noticed.
Thierry
IR photography is very doable with a D70. My understanding is that it is not with a 20D.
Thierry
I've been seen countless pictures on the Nikon D70 DPreview forum where hues have that "muddy" "broken" hues, on top of that colors are undersaturated (an issue with UV as well), etc. Vegetation 's greens, for instance, seem to come from some cheap camera loaded with cheap film - if that - etc.
And if you try to correct - whether curves in LAB space or any other technique you know - you face the problem that IR reflectance varies from one surface to another: it is not uniform. You may restore the grass's greens, for instance, but end up with say the leaves of a tree with a green that are clearly too saturated and look very artificial. The pic is a mess, and will require much more than one mask and one curve to be restored.
IMO a heat filter like the B+W486 is basically a must have with a camera like the D70 - or many of your pictures won't get the "wow" that you'd expect.
Thierry
That's because at least one of the images "without" or "with" filter have never (that word again) been taken (we don't know which one).
If you look carefully at the images, B&H recognizes this fact by speculating that it is "a simulated image". One of the pic is pure Photoshop work, and may say something about the imagination of the person who has made them, but say nothing about what the filters do.
I've used B+W486 filter for quite a long time, have done a fair amount of comparison with and without in various lighting situations and diverse scenery, and I have yet to see one example that even remotedly resembles what B&H shows in its web site (greens that turn orange with filter on !). Either the leaves were really orange, the pic with filter is genuine, but then the pic without filter if it had really been taken would have never shown the leaves as green (remember: IR by itself is seen as purplish by the camera: take a pic of an IR remote and see for yourself). Or the pic without filter is real, but the IR filter would not have turned them into orange !
Don't take me wrong: B&H is a great store - I've just advertised one of their sales - and has been on occasion the only place where I could find a "specialized" item, but these pics that B&H posts are deceptive and B&H should removed them, even the deception is not intended, as I'm sure is the case.
Thierry
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Hi Folks,
Any comment on the strength of the IR filter in rebelxt/350d ? Googling didn't find me much.
http://samya.smugmug.com
The paradox in making these filters is to remove IR efficiently - obviously - while maintaining neutrality in the visible spectrum and avoiding visible light absorption (or that would come at the expense of the camera ISO rating). Finally the filter must be cheap to make. It seems that Canon knows to make these filters better than its competitors, and I don't see why they would not have used their advantage in the 350D.
Thierry