PDA

View Full Version : The trouble with RED



Geoff Chandler
05-17-2007, 04:25 PM
I am posting here rather than a brand specific area as I think this is a more generalised problem.
In my case - I have found photographing vivid red flowers really hard.
With my A-200 I found that turning down the saturation a tad and fine tuning the WB in the direction of Blue helped - but only working hard in Photoshop
straightened it out. Similarly with my older Oly C-740.
Now I find the self same problem with the Nikon D80 - in fact - out of the box, and in Auto WB it's a maniak for reds!!!
Still with patience and experimentation I am generally OK with playing with colourspace and White balance - that is until I try to photograph a lovely Red rose in my garden - it just saturates out and goes a bit on the orange side
First shot was just after the rain - it looked wonderfull - but my photo did it no favours at all.
A little PP helped - but that red is still not quite right

Geoff Chandler
05-17-2007, 04:29 PM
~ I had another bash later and tried different settings - but that red should be deeper and not so washy!!
Normally I have been able to tame the reds - with practice on the A-200 I nearly had it nailed - but with the D80 on 'Red steroids' I am really struggling
With WB on Sunlight and +2blue and the saturation down and colourspace 2 Adobe RGB was the nearest - but still quite a long way off>...
Any suggestions?/ I mean - I am not new to this !!
- Is the Nikon a duffer, or is it me??

coldrain
05-17-2007, 05:29 PM
If you think red is hard to photograph, try purple and purple-blue flowers.
Anyway, avoid using auto white balance. How is a camera to know what a correct white balance should be, when there is no white in the scene? It can only guess, without having any actual information.

Another thing, you used sun light WB, but I see no direct sun light. Why is that? Did you post process all sunny feel out of it, or was it in fact in the shade?

Use either RAW, or the correct white balance (preferably custom white balance that you set using white or grey). If you shoot JPEG, set the colour and saturation as neutral as possible. And meter on something that has an actaul mid tone, the dark rose you are metering on will alwas get the rose overexposed, and therefore it will saturate the red channel (and that is what you are seeing).

Geoff Chandler
05-17-2007, 11:11 PM
I tried Daylight/sunshine white as I found when I did tests that cloudy consitantly gives much more red, and shade is like a red filter across the whole scene - but daylight seems to look more natural - Auto, as you suggest, is a bit unpredictable.
I have to admit that the custom White balance (IE colour temps) is a mystery to me and I couldn't guess which one to choose - and the manual WB requires I have a neatral grey or white card about my person. - If I am indoors I can sometimes find a peice of white paper...
RAW - I don't do RAW. I hjaven't got a way to convert it and I haven't got the time.
Sorry if I sound negative - but it's because I feel negative. This camera has turned out to be a real challenge, and it's getting me fed up with the whole photography thing

Phill D
05-18-2007, 12:19 AM
Don't get too despondant I'm sure you'll get the hang of it soon. It just sounds like you've got more options to check out now. I still think that yellow rose bud you posted was stunning. Just stick at it.

coldrain
05-18-2007, 02:59 AM
Flowers in particular can pose a real problem or challenge to digital cameras. The ultraviolet range for instance can make flowers on the photos appear different from what our eyes register.

Thing to keep in mind, when you are outside, you only have to meter ONCE in a lighting situation, there is only one "correct" exposure. So, you can meter on a mid tone in the vicinity of that rose for instance, since the rose is a bit too dark, and you are over-exposing the rose... making the red saturated and "flat".
Same thing about the white balance... it can hardly be a problem to have a small white paper with you (wallet? camera bag? pocket?). And you wil only have to set the WB once for the light conditions (unless the sun decides to peek through the clouds of course).

When you have both of these set correctly (I'd use the manual mode for the metering on a mid tone, set the aperture you want to use with the appropriate exposure time), you will get the best results.

I think you would have been happier if you had gone the Canon XTi route, flower colour wise (and settings wise).

Rooz
05-18-2007, 03:31 AM
I think you would have been happier if you had gone the Canon XTi route, flower colour wise (and settings wise).

lol man that made me laugh so hard i almost spat my beautiful blue moutain blend all over the monitor. :D

coldrain
05-18-2007, 04:02 AM
Why does it make you laugh? You really think the two cameras perform the same colour wise? A bit sad one can not give one's honest opinion, always being made out a "fan boy".

Always by the same people I might add.

I just happen to think that an 400D or 30D would be more towards what Geoff is looking for, for his photography. Why? Because I happen to be of the opinion that Canon DSLRs of late are more accurate colour wise, and also a lot more consistent from model to model.

That is something you can not say about Nikon, where the D70 and D70s are blue-ish, the D200 to me a bit artificial at tiems, especially in nature greens, the D80 very in your face saturated, the D50 again different.

I really am allowed to say this, and I may even be right.

coldrain
05-18-2007, 05:07 AM
Geoff, I hope that with the right exposure, right colour/saturation settings and right white balance you can get rid of the artificial quality of the colours.
Do keep in mind though that some colours of flowers simpley can not be captured accurately on digital cameras (most anyway?). But yes, the reds should be able to be much better.

Here a few examples of red flowers I shot in JPEG, different light conditions (light bulbs, direct sunlight, indirect daylight) with WB on sunlight, clouds/shade and custom white balance (the one where you set it on a grey card or white paper), where appropriate.

Geoff Chandler
05-18-2007, 05:26 AM
I have set WB with white paper before - only once with the D80, but lots with the A-200 and C740. & It works well (in all cases - possibly best with the D80!!!)
So how does it know if you stick a grey card in front? Surely it will go way out of adjustment!
No I don't usually carry a piece of card or paper around - I'd just quickly grabbed the camera & rushed out with it for the one shot.
As for Canon - they were my alternative option, and yes the colours seem good. However - the XTI was a bit small and an odd grip - coupled with a viefinder I couldn't get along with. The 30D was close though! I prefered the feel and the controls of the D80, also the D80 viewfinder is a bit better.
Images I looked at on the net popped a bit more on the D80.
I figured at the end of the day they can all be adjusted a bit in camera - so I would find a way round to get what I want.
The problem so far seems that it's ONLY the red that is a bit over saturated.
But I will; try manual WB & I will revert to daylight WB with +1 or 2 blue for general use, and Auto on cloudy days with +1 blue and see how it goes from there

Rooz
05-18-2007, 05:29 AM
Why does it make you laugh? You really think the two cameras perform the same colour wise? A bit sad one can not give one's honest opinion, always being made out a "fan boy".

Always by the same people I might add.

I just happen to think that an 400D or 30D would be more towards what Geoff is looking for, for his photography. Why? Because I happen to be of the opinion that Canon DSLRs of late are more accurate colour wise, and also a lot more consistent from model to model.

That is something you can not say about Nikon, where the D70 and D70s are blue-ish, the D200 to me a bit artificial at tiems, especially in nature greens, the D80 very in your face saturated, the D50 again different.

I really am allowed to say this, and I may even be right.

i'm not going to get into this ridiculous nikon/ canon argument with you again because it is juvenille and all you seem to say and infer in just about every post you make.

i think you may be schitzophrenic. some days you are helpful, objective and willing to have a laugh with people. the next day you are a humourless, churlish ass. you either need to acquire some better social skills or you have some serious growing up to do.

either way, it is regretful we can't seem to get along for any length of time cos i have apreciated your help.

Geoff Chandler
05-18-2007, 10:10 AM
Woah guys!
Please don't fall out on account of me and my red problem!
I would just like to say I like both brands of camera and yes cameras do vary a bit in presentation - but also have adjustment to suit personal taste. My red problem is something I have seen on most brands of camera - I just want to find a way around it, easily, with my current latest camera:)

Geoff Chandler
05-18-2007, 11:20 PM
I skipped a couple of photo stages.
First pic was a basic attempt using daylight WB and -1ev
it's still redy yellow and I guess a manual WB would be better
But I suspect the red would still be a bit off.
I changed the colours in curves until the flower was right - which is a dark shade - almost metalic, (sort of). But the grass was way off!
So I redid it and then copied the flower onto it - maybe still a tad over on the grass.
The orig would be better in a way with manual WB and another bit more under exposure

Geoff Chandler
05-18-2007, 11:25 PM
Last years Red Gerbera and the A-200
First shot was Auto WB (which worked on the A-200) with +1blue
-1ev
Second shot was similar - but with a little PP
(But
With the D80 I have to get rid of that yellowy red hue somehow)

Rooz
05-19-2007, 05:19 AM
very intersting experiment geoff. i tried a few things with both the sigma and the tamron and in various colour modes. i never knew lens' had much to do with colour reproduction and now i understand when people say that a lens is "contrasty". i have neevr noticed or really understood this before i tried this out. mind you, its difficult to really understand it cos the different focal lengths must have an impact so this is far from an ideal experiment !

the tammie at first seemed a little too saturated but when using colour mode 1a i got more detail in the image, (much cooler), and less saturation in the reds which gave it more defintion to petals etc.

the difference in the red reproduction between colour mode 1a and colour mode III or IIIa is HUGE !! this was important for me to understand actually cos i shoot lots of macro in colour mode III cos i like the intense saturation but obviously for deep reds it doesn;t work !

Geoff Chandler
05-19-2007, 06:49 AM
Rooz - I am very interested to see/hear your findings and experiments
Not just with the reds but, as coldrain mentioned, the purples and dark blues.
As for colourspace - I did initially do an experiment with the same shot in each colourspace and it seems the flatest least over saturated is the adobe RGB (type11??) tyoe 1 is good for general use and portraits - type 111 was handy in Iceland, where it was cold and grey, as it where it just gave a bit of a lift to the colours enough to help it without exagerating. I don't turn up the contrast or vividness under normal conditions so this worked well.
I may resort to colourspace 2/adobe with reduce saturation and plus on the blue for the close up of reds and purples in future - but with a whole scene I think things will be OK.
Feel free to e-mail me if you want to say more than you wish to post here

Geoff

Rooz
05-19-2007, 08:07 AM
no, i have no prob sharing them here. :)

i don't think i have had a blue macro so not sure about blue. purples i only have issues with the very lighter shades. all the darker shades i can get pretty right.

the first pic is a direct comparison of IIIa and Ia colour modes on roughly a 70% crop. the detail is clear in Ia, the saturation of IIIa which is blowing out the reds is much more visible.

the second pic is intersting. its with IIIa but i adjusted the colour of the raw image in-camera all the way to the left of the colour matrix, (blues), and it seemed to correct the colour cast well. have never used this method before so i was unsure of what result i would get but it is pretty darn good !

the third pic is a comparison of what auto levels does in nx compared to cs2. i found that auto levels in nx corrected the sigmas blown out shots very differently than cs2. nothin else but auto levels used. the cs2 adjustment is almost non existstent and does not remove that red saturation, the nx one is much cooler and removes it completey. i thought a bit more work and it would be spot on. (who said software makes no difference ??)

the last one out of the sigma in colour mode I and it is spot on imo. it is very strange that this one is so right where the rest of the sigma shots were really ordinary. i can only think that the cam metered much better cos of the light background behind and between the flowers.

so what does all that mean ? well, for one thing i can get much more consistent and reliable results from the tamron as opposed to the sigma. in fact straight out of the cam in most tamron shots i get the result i want. its an unfair comparison of course cos the tammie is a macro lens whreas the sigma is a pseudo macro lens. BUT it did peak my interest that the colour rendition could be so different. it is not something so noticeable with regular shots but with macro of course everything is magnified so it becomes obvious.

as ever, WB is critical. the variations in macros with WB is always significant but with the reds it seems even more pronounced.

Geoff Chandler
05-19-2007, 10:40 AM
Really interesting comparions Rooz
I am at work this weekend - so not much chance to experiment - but
have you tried out Type 2 AdobeRGB???
Also - CS2 is Adobe photoshop - but what is NX
I have Seriof Photo plus (8)
also a Minolta Dimage program which is good for quick fixes and keeps the exif data, ulike the Serif - but the serif is a bit more flexable
I have a couple of others that I occasionally use
Basically - it looks like a turn towards the blue helps it out with macro reds
but don't use type 3

sjseto
05-19-2007, 12:32 PM
Geoff, the nx that Rooz is referring to is Capture NX, Nikon's RAW conversion software.

I know you said that you don't have conversion software and that you don't have the time, but I don't think that shooting and processing in RAW could possibly be any more difficult than what you're trying to do now, in-camera and in Photoshop, to correct your reds. I'm pretty feeble in my image post-processing abilities but I've been able to get more accurate reds by shooting in RAW and adjusting in Bibble (my RAW converter of choice) than by shooting in JPG and adjusting in Paint Shop Pro. I find it just as easy if not easier, and no more time consuming. I really think you should give it a chance.

Stephanie

Geoff Chandler
05-19-2007, 04:25 PM
Geoff, the nx that Rooz is referring to is Capture NX, Nikon's RAW conversion software.

I know you said that you don't have conversion software and that you don't have the time, but I don't think that shooting and processing in RAW could possibly be any more difficult than what you're trying to do now, in-camera and in Photoshop, to correct your reds. I'm pretty feeble in my image post-processing abilities but I've been able to get more accurate reds by shooting in RAW and adjusting in Bibble (my RAW converter of choice) than by shooting in JPG and adjusting in Paint Shop Pro. I find it just as easy if not easier, and no more time consuming. I really think you should give it a chance.

Stephanie

Stephanie - thanks for the kind thoughts - I see what you're saying.
Would it not be the case, however, that I would have to convert every photo I want to keep. Forgive me if I have this completely wrong - as you know i have no experience of RAW.

But, for example, take my recent Iceland holiday photos: -
I took around 330 - 340 ish shots.
I deleted somewhere around 50 or 60. but created around 6 or 8 extras (panoramas, crops etc).
I probably tweaked a further 20 shots - so, aside from the deleting I will have messed with maybe 30 shots maximum If you count that before the deleted pix it's about 11%, or after it's around 9%
So rounding it off - I would edit about a tenth of my photos.
Surely I would have to open and convert/tweak many more if I shot in RAW??
PLUS - the extra loss of space and speed on the camera
I am happy with JPG at middle quality - reserving top quality (just a flick of a button) for those special shots - (which actually didn't occur at all on my last holiday) -
Part of my reasoning for a DSLR was to make life a bit easier and more harmonious - not less. The faster focusing and more accurate exposures etc are supposed to make life better for me as far as photos are concerned.
I think I am working towards that - I managed it to a degree with both point ans Shoots - If I can't succeed, then the D80 goes! I really don't believe that line of events will happen however as I am sure that all those settings are in there for use and for a reason.
I enjoy editing, don't get me wrong, but I also have a busy life besides my hobbies.
If I can manage on 10% editing then I am happy that I got 90% good straight off the camera - and I did in Iceland!
This Red issue was a problem that I resolved on my A-200 and I am sure once I find a formula it will be possible with the D80. Almost as simple as exposure compensation...?
I am a family guy and I have a job and friends - If I were single I would give it more time and yes - I guess I would be shooting in RAW.
I am contemplating another Point and Shoot for my wife for holidays so that sometimes when we go out I will leave the D80 behind and she can just tuck a little camera in her pocket. Something compact as I have no such camera myself (My daughter has though!).
Does all this make sense - or am I doing this subject to death??

coldrain
05-19-2007, 05:05 PM
I do not have a D80 so I can not try anything, but try to use as neutral a setting as you can for colour and saturation. And just really take care of overexposing, watch the reds. I am pretty sure you will have seen the red get saturated/clip in the RGB hystogram.

So... meter on something else, not on a red flower (since the flower is a bit too dark to get accurate metering on, and with the red, the red channel will just clip/saturate, which will play a big part in the colour not being right).

Rooz
05-19-2007, 06:19 PM
Stephanie - thanks for the kind thoughts - I see what you're saying.
Would it not be the case, however, that I would have to convert every photo I want to keep. Forgive me if I have this completely wrong - as you know i have no experience of RAW.

But, for example, take my recent Iceland holiday photos: -
I took around 330 - 340 ish shots.
I deleted somewhere around 50 or 60. but created around 6 or 8 extras (panoramas, crops etc).
I probably tweaked a further 20 shots - so, aside from the deleting I will have messed with maybe 30 shots maximum If you count that before the deleted pix it's about 11%, or after it's around 9%
So rounding it off - I would edit about a tenth of my photos.
Surely I would have to open and convert/tweak many more if I shot in RAW??
PLUS - the extra loss of space and speed on the camera
I am happy with JPG at middle quality - reserving top quality (just a flick of a button) for those special shots - (which actually didn't occur at all on my last holiday) -
Part of my reasoning for a DSLR was to make life a bit easier and more harmonious - not less. The faster focusing and more accurate exposures etc are supposed to make life better for me as far as photos are concerned.
I think I am working towards that - I managed it to a degree with both point ans Shoots - If I can't succeed, then the D80 goes! I really don't believe that line of events will happen however as I am sure that all those settings are in there for use and for a reason.
I enjoy editing, don't get me wrong, but I also have a busy life besides my hobbies.
If I can manage on 10% editing then I am happy that I got 90% good straight off the camera - and I did in Iceland!
This Red issue was a problem that I resolved on my A-200 and I am sure once I find a formula it will be possible with the D80. Almost as simple as exposure compensation...?
I am a family guy and I have a job and friends - If I were single I would give it more time and yes - I guess I would be shooting in RAW.
I am contemplating another Point and Shoot for my wife for holidays so that sometimes when we go out I will leave the D80 behind and she can just tuck a little camera in her pocket. Something compact as I have no such camera myself (My daughter has though!).
Does all this make sense - or am I doing this subject to death??

everything you say makes perfect sense and i can feel your frustration from here. lol

a couple of points here:

you mentioned tucking something into your pocket sometimes. thats nothing to be critical about, i do this quite often. there are times i don;t want to carry around a big cam so i tuck my little ixus 850 in my pocket and off i go !! there are times and places where a dslr is just not convenient. i did this with my old canon eos and i still do this now.

what you need to figure for yourself is this: will another dslr give you the results that you want ? its quite easy for someone to say "an xti will get better results" but i think that is complete and utter rubbish and poor advice to give someone that has a major investment. it's a shame you don;t know anyone with an xti cos that would be an experiment i recommend, get the xti for a weekend and test it out to see if it achieves what the d80 cannot.

if your frustration continues then i would even seriously consider renting one and again trying it for yourself. (or even renting another lens for the d80). imo this is such a critical thing to do becasue the last thing you want to do is lose money on this setup to buy canon and then having the same problem. reds and purples are difficult to achieve with digital and will be the same in every digital.

i look at it this way; if some people are getting the result i want that means the cam can do it but i can;t...YET. :D personally the reds i was getting out of the cam to me were accurate after getting my head around colour modes etc. but this is only one flower in one lighting scenario. most liekly this will change every time depending on light etc. perhaps investing, (cheap as chips), in a grey card will help to get the cam to be more consistent with colour. someone did this a while ago and i think they said the results were great.

glass makes a difference. i know you can;t spend money on glass right now but believe me the lens even effects colours. i have been SO happy with the tamron i can;t tell you how wonderful the lens is in every respect. and alsmot every macro i have shot out of this thing is close to perfect straight out of the camera or with MINIMAL PP with curves.

i'll try a couple more red tests tonight, i will take a few with my 850ixus aswell just to see the difference. i will try and work with metering a bit more to see how differnt it is. spot metering on a red flower obviously doesn;t work, especially with macro when it fills the frame so that leaves you with matrix or making sure there is something other the the red to meter from.

today i am testing out the 80-200f2.8 on a d200 so i can;t help. :D

Geoff Chandler
05-19-2007, 11:22 PM
Just reading the recent replies with my morning coffee and cereal before heading off to work (shift work!).
I made my decision on the camera over a long period - and it was close between the Canon 30D and the Nikon D80 ~ I really quite liked both.
Now I just have to adapt to the one I have decided on - I am sure I would have to do something similar with the 30D had I bought it.
This Red problem is not just a Nikon thing - although in some settings the Nikon gets a bit enthusiastic with the red saturation.
I will see about getting a couple of cards or something.
well - I rushed out, inbetween sips off coffee, snapped a few shots and dashed back in - only got 15 mins before heading off to work
Here's the 2nd of 3 shots I took of the Lilley
For D80 users - it was colourspace 2 Adobe RGB, WB Sunlight +2blue
-1.7ev (the first shot was a tiny bit lighter) ISO250, 60th sec F5.6
75mm equiv focal length
The daisys in the background are too bright - but that's OK (should be light yellow) Te Lilley is almost spot on
This is morning light - and I know it would be different at different times of the day.
NB also - this is a slightly unusual colour shade - and I wanted to capture it accurately as it's not your
usual bright red but a more subtle shade. The previous PP experiment was too much, this is nearer the truth

Geoff Chandler
05-19-2007, 11:27 PM
~ So it can be done - once you get to know your camera
Here's the lilley on its own
Same settings more or less - (40th sec I think)
I just need to be aware of which settings have what effect - hopefully with
time it will become second nature...
This shot looks spot on on my screen as far as colour, contrast, brightness are concerned
I think I was expecting to make smaller exposure adjustments - but especially with these reds closer up I see they need under exposing.
Rooz - don't disregard the type 2 Adobe RGB mode!
Coldrain thanks for your helpfull advice

Rooz
05-20-2007, 03:17 AM
ok geoff. i think i got this red thing licked. once you get the WB and metering right, its a breeze. these are all straight out of the cam from 4 different lens', no PP just some cropping for better framing. exif data should all be there. i also shot from some different angles and framing to see how it would meter against different shades in the background. also a full red frame with the tam. all photos are matrix metering. -0.3ev and i think from memory all with colour 1a. mode II is a little too desaturated and neutral for my taste.

the red is a little different depending on the lens and the tamron again is the most accurate from a reproduction sense, but the reds are great in each photo. the metering in the VR shot is a little too light cos of the very light backround on the right. the other VR shots against a blue background were much more similar to the 50mm in colour. not as accurate as the tam, but not as vibrant as the sigma.

meanwhile on the different lens', check out the beautiful bokeh with the 18-200VR, (i never noticed it so much before), and the ugly bokeh with the 50mm f1.8. i noticed this poor bokeh in the 50mm when stopped down in sunlight, this happens from f4 and up and is a MAJOR shortcoming of this lens imo. a little while ago it came up in a portrait shoot and it came up again here. also notice the vibrance and brighter reds of the sigma. this was consistent with every perspective shot with the sig regardless of the sun position. i like it personally but i can also see how it could end up being a bit frustrating. the 18-200VR is alot less saturated...maybe too desaturated for my liking but a quick zap in l/c will fix it right up.

1. 50mm
2. 18-200VR
3. sigma
4. tam
5. tam

i guess i wont have to invest in a 30d to resolve reds after all. ;)

Geoff Chandler
05-20-2007, 06:33 AM
Rooz
Couldn't help but spend ages looking at all the different
shots in your test - Really quite interesting (to us!!).

In the first 2 shots the 50mm 1.8 seems a sharper lens, but they do both
certainly present a different look.
In 3 & 4 the Sigma is adding a touch of yellow/red more ~ if the Tamron
is accurate.
I would be interested to see an identical shot at, say 50mm on all 3
The 18-200, 50mm, and the Sigma 15 - 50 all at the same settings....
(My Sigma 17 - 70 is probably nearer to your Sigma than anything else.)
When I was doing the homework - I spent a lot of time comparing
images on various lenses - one of the best was the 18 - 200 (which I couldn't afford - or find)
I felt it was better than the 18 - 135 - which seemed to also suffer from
CA's quite a bit (fringing)
The Sigma was slightly more yellow, and the Nikon slightly more blue I
guess. But in general many D80 shots and indeed many P&S Nikon shots
seem to have this strong red emphasis. The Sigmas would certainly suit the Canons, as for years I have felt that the canons were slightly on the blue side of things - in fact with the early film EOS cameras I could identify photos taken on one out of a bunch quite easily - even though generally I always saw the Canons as pretty neutral. Grass is usually the givaway - has the look of that slight blue as if it needed a skylight filter.
Playing with the WB, as I have briefly, has satisfied me that it is fixable.
I was very pleased with my early morning shot as it really is how it looked.
I will be interested to see how I fare at different times of the day in different lighting.
No I won't be changing my Sigma 17 - 70 as it is a terrific walkaround lens, the macro is good on it too.
Thanks for your hard work and interest in this subject
Geoff

Geoff Chandler
05-20-2007, 03:23 PM
Well - I got home from work this evening - just after 7pm and looked at our new 'Bottle Brush plant' - rushed up and grabed the camera and shot off a few shots with recent discussions still buring in my memory...
So
Here's the first, I am happy to hear comments good or bad...

It was Sunshine WB and +2blue which seems to do the trick with the colour during most of the day - Colour space was Type 2 Adobe RGB
Exposre was -0.7 (and I expected it to be a little darker at that!) Matrix
ISO 250; 50th sec, F5.6 @ 45mm (= 67mm equiv) Sigma 17 - 70
Just resized andmminimal USM - radius set at 0.8, amount 35% just to help after the resize

Geoff Chandler
05-20-2007, 03:24 PM
This one is the same as above - except 40th sec

Geoff Chandler
05-20-2007, 03:48 PM
I was happy with my shade of red - but less sure of my exposure!
Maybe it was the shade of the fence confusing it - or could it have
been the sunshine on the fence?? I don't know, I really don't.!!
Had this been important I would have been re-taking the shot at
an even lower exposure - but it really didn't seem to me like a photo
that required a lot of compensation (that is until I saw the results!!!)
Is it more obvious to anyone else out there???

I think I need to recalibrate my brain - shots like these must need in excess of -1EV - it just didn't
look like it - unlike the morning shot which did

sjseto
05-20-2007, 07:37 PM
Stephanie - thanks for the kind thoughts - I see what you're saying.
Would it not be the case, however, that I would have to convert every photo I want to keep. Forgive me if I have this completely wrong - as you know i have no experience of RAW.

But, for example, take my recent Iceland holiday photos: -
I took around 330 - 340 ish shots.
I deleted somewhere around 50 or 60. but created around 6 or 8 extras (panoramas, crops etc).
I probably tweaked a further 20 shots - so, aside from the deleting I will have messed with maybe 30 shots maximum If you count that before the deleted pix it's about 11%, or after it's around 9%
So rounding it off - I would edit about a tenth of my photos.
Surely I would have to open and convert/tweak many more if I shot in RAW??
PLUS - the extra loss of space and speed on the camera
I am happy with JPG at middle quality - reserving top quality (just a flick of a button) for those special shots - (which actually didn't occur at all on my last holiday) -
Part of my reasoning for a DSLR was to make life a bit easier and more harmonious - not less. The faster focusing and more accurate exposures etc are supposed to make life better for me as far as photos are concerned.
I think I am working towards that - I managed it to a degree with both point ans Shoots - If I can't succeed, then the D80 goes! I really don't believe that line of events will happen however as I am sure that all those settings are in there for use and for a reason.
I enjoy editing, don't get me wrong, but I also have a busy life besides my hobbies.
If I can manage on 10% editing then I am happy that I got 90% good straight off the camera - and I did in Iceland!
This Red issue was a problem that I resolved on my A-200 and I am sure once I find a formula it will be possible with the D80. Almost as simple as exposure compensation...?
I am a family guy and I have a job and friends - If I were single I would give it more time and yes - I guess I would be shooting in RAW.
I am contemplating another Point and Shoot for my wife for holidays so that sometimes when we go out I will leave the D80 behind and she can just tuck a little camera in her pocket. Something compact as I have no such camera myself (My daughter has though!).
Does all this make sense - or am I doing this subject to death??

Well if you put it that way, I can see how shooting in RAW would take more time and effort. But unless all of your shots are going to be of red flowers, or even contain red in such a significant amount that it's going to bug you if the colour is not entirely accurate, I don't think it's going to be an issue.

With the D80 you have the ability to shoot RAW+JPG, which is what I typically do. The way I see it, you can use JPG for most stuff, and RAW for the more critical stuff, such as the photos where you need to get reds to look exactly right. Or you can just shoot in JPG most of the time and switch to RAW for the more critical shots.

I've just found that with RAW it's ultimately easier to get colour accuracy in post-processing if you've screwed up the white balance when you took the picture in the first place. And the results are better than if I try to do post-processing on JPG images. There will be times when you won't have an opportunity to go back and try the shot again, so why take the chance of not capturing the shot in RAW?

You can download one of the RAW conversion software programs and try it free for 30 days to see how you like it. Catpure NX seems to the the most popular amongst Nikon users, but I went with Bibble Lite because I found it less intimidating, and it was a bonus that it was quite a bit cheaper.

Anyway, it seems as if you're figuring out the red thing on your own and in your own way, so good for you for perservering.

Stephanie

Rooz
05-20-2007, 09:39 PM
ood post steph. i agree.
i actually find it easier to work in raw than jpeg cos the WB in particualr is a one click fix.

Geoff Chandler
05-21-2007, 06:35 AM
I think my life/domsetic position is the main restriction here,
I might have a RAW convertor in my Dimage program CD, don't know.
If I can manage to get it right anyway - no problem -
but - is it an easy sort of thing to understand?? I have
absolutely no idea how what where when why does it work - RAW
I mean - it's a total mystery and as I haven't really needed it with
my kind off life and photo time - I haven't bothered to look into it.
As for shooting RAW & JPG at the same time - that's clever - but
surely uses up lots more card space which is always a premium for me
Hey - I don't even shoot at 10MP all the time.
Recent shots - I was happy more or less with the colours - just need a bit
more practice and experiment in different lighting - but exposure!!!! Well
maybe that's for another thread!!!

Rooz
05-21-2007, 07:04 AM
the advantage of RAW is speed imo. if your WB is out its one click to fix, not trial and error. i have copied and pasted a couple of things from NX. the first is the adjustable raw panel which shows what you can adjust quickly by drop down menu which is otherwise set in your camera. eg ? instead of taking 3 photos of the same thing with different colour modes then opening all 3 to check the result. take ONE shot in the colour mode you normally use then use the drop down menus to selct any of the other colour modes to immediately display them on your screen. you can instant access to scores of camera options from the one photo. that way you can take more time taking photos and less time worried about settings. exposure comp is another example...want more exp comp ? click the arrow and add a bit more. forgot to turn the sharpening on ? no problem, use a drop down arrow. etc etc etc

the second is just about the full raw workflow by tick box. i have opened the WB one just to show you can even adjust temp just by a click and slider. same thing applies to all other settings.

people make raw out to be something mysterious or difficult or that only experts use. its absoluetly not. you work on it the exact same way as you would a jpeg or any other sort of file except imo its faster to use cos i dont fiddle around much.

the other benefit of the more advanced software is a batch converter. with this, if you take 25 images of the same things at the same time under same light etc, you fix ONE image and then copy the settings from that image to apply to the rest of the images.

i think you should give it a go mate.

Geoff Chandler
05-21-2007, 03:33 PM
OK - when I get a bit of spare time on my hands I will look into it
- I guess this is not the program that you get with the camera then!??
I never loaded that as I was told it's not worth it.

Prospero
05-21-2007, 03:44 PM
The program that Rooz shows in these pictures is Nikon Capture NX. It is not supplied with the camera. I believe it costs 100 euros or so. There is a free trial available though, which allows you to use all features of the program for 30 days.

The program that is supplied with the camera is indeed very limited when converting a raw file. I don't know if you can even change the whitebalance with that program.

Nikon Capture NX, like most raw converters, has a badge mode which is very easy to set up and which will convert all your raw files in one go (you can apply the settings you generally use on your camera to all file). After that, you can convert the pictures that need more treatment individually. In this way, the RAW workflow will be almost as quick as the workflow you described. Perhaps even quicker since changes to colour, hue, contrast, etc. can be done a lot easier.

Geoff Chandler
05-21-2007, 04:05 PM
Not cheap then:D
It'll have to wait! I am saving every last penny to pay for the camera still.
All my programs, so far, have been free.
I have a sneak feeling that if I upgrade my Serif Photo Plus to a more up to date variant - that too might have a RAW converter - this would cost me
around 26= I believe - unless I can get a free version
Oh what a cheapskate!! - But I seriously have to curb any spending for a while!
Thanks everyone for all the usefull tips

toriaj
05-21-2007, 08:00 PM
... I use Silkypix, which has a free version. It doesn't look the same as NX, but it does the job for me.

I was intimidated by RAW, but it seems no harder than a jpg to me in terms of easiness to process. Before getting Silkypix, I used Paint Shop Pro for all of my processing, and it can even handle RAW files. I didn't really "need" a RAW program. But Silkypix streamlines some of the adjustments, so it's worth it. Silkypix can also work on jpg, just with limited functions.

Geoff Chandler
05-22-2007, 02:27 AM
Just how much space does a RAW file take up though - hey silly me - I should flip over to it to see - that should give me an idea - but I suspect it's a lot more than top quality JPG!!

coldrain
05-22-2007, 02:35 AM
About 3 times more (of course depending on camera make).

Geoff Chandler
05-22-2007, 03:07 AM
Gasp!!!!:eek:

Norm in Fujino
05-26-2007, 12:58 AM
as I was taking some pictures of roses I got my wife for our 30th wedding anniversary the other day, so I thought I'd throw Olympus into the mix. I personally like Oly colors as produced with the Kodak CCDs. I'm interested to see how the new Panasonic LiveMOS sensor in the E-410/510 holds up Oly's color reputation.
These three with the E-300 and ZD 50mm f2 macro, raw+Silkypix, under halogen spot lighting.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c197/Peregrinor/P5266862w1.jpg

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c197/Peregrinor/P5266863w1.jpg

And a 50% crop from the one above:
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c197/Peregrinor/P5266863w2.jpg

Rooz
05-26-2007, 01:19 AM
congrats on the anniversary.
nice flowers there...surely thats worth a new lens for you ? ;)

Phill D
05-26-2007, 01:33 AM
don't think I can add much to this but I too am curious as to how the Oly E410 & 510 turn out. Or the next Panasonic version for that matter as I kind of got attached to the Lumix characteristics now. From my experience with the FZ20 & TZ1 they too suffer the red problem that Geoff has been wrestling with. Often reds either just dont look the correct shade or are just, well glowing. I tried a few comparison shots of a red flower in our garden on both cameras after reading this thread. I was taking them at x10 zoom from about 20-25 feet away so it was quite a test really I suppose. I was suprised that the TZ gave the best results. On standard mode with spot metering on the red flower the colours were closest to actual but the shot looked a bit flat. The vivid mode when I metered on the surrounding green as Coldrain suggested gave the best overall shot having a vivid green background with a fairly sharp but rather glowing red flower. I've posted it here but the compression for the forum seems to have lost some of the pop. This is the first time I've got better results from the TZ1 over the FZ20, maybe that is showing an improvement in sensor technology/processing in the newer camera so maybe that bodes well for the Oly 410/510 etc.

John_Reed
05-26-2007, 08:35 AM
http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/147179659-L.jpg

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/147182882-L.jpg

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/150519420-L.jpg

http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/150520195-L.jpg

Last one taken in "Telemacro" mode, at full lens zoom.

Norm in Fujino
05-26-2007, 08:41 AM
That last one is really gorgeous!

John_Reed
05-26-2007, 08:46 AM
That last one is really gorgeous!

I've been conscious of "red issues" for a long time. This one seems to have them pretty well in hand though. I actually backed off on the saturation for that image, the red was TOO red. But there's still plenty of image detail there, if you de-saturate it completely, all of the petal details still persist.

I appreciate your comment!

Phill D
05-26-2007, 11:25 PM
John that last shot is beautifull. From what you've shown the way the TZ3 handles red is my only regret about going for the super cheap end of line offer for the TZ1. I don't suppose you have a red shot TZ1 & 3 comparison do you as you have both cams. Just to see what an experienced TZ'er can do to show how much better the electronics are getting.

John_Reed
05-27-2007, 12:09 AM
John that last shot is beautifull. From what you've shown the way the TZ3 handles red is my only regret about going for the super cheap end of line offer for the TZ1. I don't suppose you have a red shot TZ1 & 3 comparison do you as you have both cams. Just to see what an experienced TZ'er can do to show how much better the electronics are getting.Here's a red rose from the TZ1:

http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/82797652-L.jpg

Another red flower:

http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/73242403-L.jpg

I've always thought the TZ1 was a great flower camera. Put it in macro mode, turn it on, nose up to the flower, and you get a nice crisp, colorful shot with reasonable bokeh as well, being so close to the subject. The TZ3 adds the "TeleMacro" function (how I shot that last rose I showed), which lets you get (in fact, forces you to get) further away from the subject, so your camera won't cast a shadow on the subject, and you'll get improved bokeh, at full zoom. Don't sell your TZ1 short, it's pretty capable!

Rooz
05-27-2007, 12:22 AM
http://John-Reed.smugmug.com/photos/150520195-L.jpg

Last one taken in "Telemacro" mode, at full lens zoom.

as good as any rose photo i've seen. what a beauty.

Phill D
05-27-2007, 12:38 AM
I knew you'd have some shots to show off the TZ1 wow they are brilliant. I wasn't trying to sell the TZ1 short I bought it on a budget & have been very impressed. No real regrets at all just a lot of shots I would have missed not taking the FZ20 along on trips. TZ goes most places. I've got to ask though what settings, distances & lighting conditions were those TZ1 rose shots you posted.

John_Reed
05-27-2007, 08:32 AM
I knew you'd have some shots to show off the TZ1 wow they are brilliant. I wasn't trying to sell the TZ1 short I bought it on a budget & have been very impressed. No real regrets at all just a lot of shots I would have missed not taking the FZ20 along on trips. TZ goes most places. I've got to ask though what settings, distances & lighting conditions were those TZ1 rose shots you posted.Hey Phil, the TZ1 is an automatic camera! Not much to set. I did choose "Macro" mode, that's a "setting." Generally, "Boggs Standard" is the theme of the day? The camera's "Pict Adj" was set in "Natural" mode (though I now use "Standard" for the TZ3).

For the first shot, here's the EXIF data. (http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=82797652)

And the EXIF data (http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=73242403) for the second shot.

You might note from the EXIF data that I used exposure bias (-1.33) for the first shot, no bias for the second one. I often found that no bias was a good setting, as the camera endeavors to balance the scene pretty well between highlight clipping and dark areas. My first rose might have more resembled the one I took with the TZ3 if I hadn't cranked in so much negative bias.

Incidentally, I sold my TZ1 to a young couple about to have their first baby. My TZ1 is now acting as my "eyes," showing the daily growth and cute photos of the baby and his family, just got an e-mail late last night with a raft of great photos. It's good at humans, too!

Phill D
05-28-2007, 01:42 AM
Ok point taken John. Thanks for the info. Interesting I've tended to use Natural & a bit of -ve exposure bias as well.
Thanks again.

Geoff Chandler
05-28-2007, 09:51 AM
Great examples here everyone!
My Red problem is more or less resolved - just a matter of finding the right settings for the right light I guess
Same goes for pinks and Purples ~
Here's a Foxglove in the corner of our garden - despite the overcast, ready to rain, day - I still used Sunshine WB and +1Blue... here these are just resized and spliced together.
Both pics were -1 ev which is more than I would previously have expected was needed

Geoff Chandler
06-06-2011, 05:44 PM
Just as a footnote to this - after some years of experimentation
I find mostly my best way of getting accuracy of colour has been to use the Kelvin
scale adjusting as the light changes - of course a grey or white card is very good - but
once to set it the only way to fine tune it is to set it again (or use slightly tinted white cards)
The D80 was slightly enthusiastic when it came to reds, so far the D90 seems a little more balanced
in that area.

Light-twister
06-26-2011, 11:05 AM
Must say, I have had no issues with colour reproduction using my tamron 90mm on either my 450D or 7D, however the kit lenses I used to use with the 450D were terrible with colour transmission.

Geoff Chandler
06-26-2011, 03:28 PM
I always liked the way most Canon cams manage reds - although I have seen them
over saturate it too.