"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Depending on various factors, it also looks gray in person. I was seriously having a hard time telling if it was marine layer or...
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Depending on various factors, it also looks gray in person. I was seriously having a hard time telling if it was marine layer or smoke the first day, but it never burned off, and the sun was orange, so that says "smoke," but the "cloud" was still gray, even if it lit everything below it a bright orange. Maybe the smoke cover isn't as bad from the fire causing it in my area, but my view looks more like the digital one than the film one, but even at the worst fire fifteen years ago, it still wasn't orange.
Man, it's hard not to feel that film is superior in some ways. That algorithm I think is Bayer Interpolation, and it actually means that digital cameras have fewer megapixels than they actually...
Man, it's hard not to feel that film is superior in some ways. That algorithm I think is Bayer Interpolation, and it actually means that digital cameras have fewer megapixels than they actually claim to have.
Color film isn't an unbiased medium either. Each kind of film is a product designed to make some kinds of pictures look good, not for scientific accuracy, and this results in racial bias for example.
Color film isn't an unbiased medium either. Each kind of film is a product designed to make some kinds of pictures look good, not for scientific accuracy, and this results in racial bias for example.
Film is not superior. Most film assumes daylight white balance. You need colored filters to correct film. With digital, you often have significantly more control.
Film is not superior. Most film assumes daylight white balance. You need colored filters to correct film. With digital, you often have significantly more control.
Note that the Bayer pattern used by most CMOS sensors isn't inherent in digital photography. CCD sensors, for example, don't have a Bayer pattern usually, as I understand it. I believe the Foveon...
Note that the Bayer pattern used by most CMOS sensors isn't inherent in digital photography. CCD sensors, for example, don't have a Bayer pattern usually, as I understand it. I believe the Foveon sensors also don't have a Bayer pattern. (Though they are also CMOS, so I guess they're not inherent in CMOS sensors, either.)
I'm mostly a hobbyist. I switched from Nikon (I mostly used my dad's D800) to a X-T1 when it came out(birthday gift) . It then got upgraded to a X-T3 I really like the modeless ergonomics (no...
I'm mostly a hobbyist.
I switched from Nikon (I mostly used my dad's D800) to a X-T1 when it came out(birthday gift) . It then got upgraded to a X-T3
I really like the modeless ergonomics (no PSAM! ) , which is reminiscent of Leica: set the aperture/shutter speed/iso on their dedicated dial, or put them in the "auto" position if you don't CARE. There's still two dials (thumb, index) if you want to do quick on-the-fly adjustment.
I like the instant preview of the viewfinder, the compactness and lightness if the whole system ; but that's shared by all mirrorless cameras.
Fujifilm cameras all have famed color rendition. As a digital addict who try to spent less time in post, I appreciated those profile who are often way good enough.
From the article: Note that there are similar problems with astronomy and with photos actually taken on Mars. Color reproduction in photography is partly a matter of taste, adjusting the colors to...
From the article:
Before digital cameras, film set the look of a photograph. But when digital photography was created decades ago, color had to be recreated from scratch. Camera sensors are color-blind—they see only brightness, and engineers had to trick them into reproducing color using algorithms. A process called “white balance” replaced the chemical, color tone of film. Most cameras now adjust the white balance on their own, attempting to discern which objects in a photo ought to look white by compensating for an excess of warm or cool colors. But automatic white balance isn’t terribly reliable. If you’ve tried to take a smartphone photo of a scene with multiple types of light, such as a city sunset, you’ve probably watched the image change tones from redder to bluer as you frame or reframe it. The device struggles to figure out which subject should look white, and which exposure (the amount of light to capture) might best represent it.
Under the blood-red San Francisco sky, white balance doesn’t have a reference against which to calibrate accurately. Because everything was tinted red, the software assumed that the entire scene was generally neutral. People felt confused or even betrayed when their phone cameras transformed the tiger sky into images that washed out the orange, or in some cases made it look mostly gray, like an overcast day.
Note that there are similar problems with astronomy and with photos actually taken on Mars. Color reproduction in photography is partly a matter of taste, adjusting the colors to try to represent what you would see.
I'm not entirely sure that white balance is entirely an artifact of digital photography; I notice that what looks white in real life can also be slightly tinted. Going outside with today's orange...
I'm not entirely sure that white balance is entirely an artifact of digital photography; I notice that what looks white in real life can also be slightly tinted. Going outside with today's orange sky will begin to look grey after your eyes adjust to the lighting. If I hold up a piece of paper next to my screen showing a white background, I can see that they are slightly different shades of white, but if I'm just looking at one independently I'll just think that whichever I chose to look at will be complete and pure white.
You're correct! White balance is really only a thing because our eyes adjust so well to the color temperature of ambient light! If you ever wear tinted sunglasses, you can notice how when you...
You're correct! White balance is really only a thing because our eyes adjust so well to the color temperature of ambient light! If you ever wear tinted sunglasses, you can notice how when you first put them on, everything looks tinted, but if you continue to wear them you'll no longer notice the tint. Then, when you take them off, everything will look tinted the other way, and you're stuck with that until your eyes adjust again.
Color balance is also a property of chemical film too! If you shoot color film meant for sunlight under ambient light that isn't sunlight, you'll get a similar tint as if you got the color balance wrong on your digital camera.
Yes. Incandescent lighting is redder than sunlight (in normal conditions) and our perception of color tries to compensate for the lighting, to see the colors of objects as expected despite the...
Yes. Incandescent lighting is redder than sunlight (in normal conditions) and our perception of color tries to compensate for the lighting, to see the colors of objects as expected despite the lighting being different. White balance is trying to do something similar.
Some people were sharing photos of Pantone colors against the sky, which sort of compensates for that or at least lets you adjust in post-processing. Mars Curiosity had a sundial with color swatches on it for similar reasons. But then again if you’re trying to show the quality of the light, I’m not sure that’s going to help.
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Depending on various factors, it also looks gray in person. I was seriously having a hard time telling if it was marine layer or smoke the first day, but it never burned off, and the sun was orange, so that says "smoke," but the "cloud" was still gray, even if it lit everything below it a bright orange. Maybe the smoke cover isn't as bad from the fire causing it in my area, but my view looks more like the digital one than the film one, but even at the worst fire fifteen years ago, it still wasn't orange.
It was orange here for less than a day, but it really got people's attention. Yesterday and today it is just smog and you can't see far at all.
Man, it's hard not to feel that film is superior in some ways. That algorithm I think is Bayer Interpolation, and it actually means that digital cameras have fewer megapixels than they actually claim to have.
Color film isn't an unbiased medium either. Each kind of film is a product designed to make some kinds of pictures look good, not for scientific accuracy, and this results in racial bias for example.
Digital cameras now have greater dynamic range than film. Still no where as close to the human eye.
Film is not superior. Most film assumes daylight white balance. You need colored filters to correct film. With digital, you often have significantly more control.
Note that the Bayer pattern used by most CMOS sensors isn't inherent in digital photography. CCD sensors, for example, don't have a Bayer pattern usually, as I understand it. I believe the Foveon sensors also don't have a Bayer pattern. (Though they are also CMOS, so I guess they're not inherent in CMOS sensors, either.)
X-trans sensor have a different mosaic than the bayer one.
That's really cool! I've heard good things about Fuji's digital cameras, but haven't had a chance to try one out myself.
I'm mostly a hobbyist.
I switched from Nikon (I mostly used my dad's D800) to a X-T1 when it came out(birthday gift) . It then got upgraded to a X-T3
I really like the modeless ergonomics (no PSAM! ) , which is reminiscent of Leica: set the aperture/shutter speed/iso on their dedicated dial, or put them in the "auto" position if you don't CARE. There's still two dials (thumb, index) if you want to do quick on-the-fly adjustment.
I like the instant preview of the viewfinder, the compactness and lightness if the whole system ; but that's shared by all mirrorless cameras.
Fujifilm cameras all have famed color rendition. As a digital addict who try to spent less time in post, I appreciated those profile who are often way good enough.
From the article:
Note that there are similar problems with astronomy and with photos actually taken on Mars. Color reproduction in photography is partly a matter of taste, adjusting the colors to try to represent what you would see.
I'm not entirely sure that white balance is entirely an artifact of digital photography; I notice that what looks white in real life can also be slightly tinted. Going outside with today's orange sky will begin to look grey after your eyes adjust to the lighting. If I hold up a piece of paper next to my screen showing a white background, I can see that they are slightly different shades of white, but if I'm just looking at one independently I'll just think that whichever I chose to look at will be complete and pure white.
You're correct! White balance is really only a thing because our eyes adjust so well to the color temperature of ambient light! If you ever wear tinted sunglasses, you can notice how when you first put them on, everything looks tinted, but if you continue to wear them you'll no longer notice the tint. Then, when you take them off, everything will look tinted the other way, and you're stuck with that until your eyes adjust again.
Color balance is also a property of chemical film too! If you shoot color film meant for sunlight under ambient light that isn't sunlight, you'll get a similar tint as if you got the color balance wrong on your digital camera.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_adaptation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_balance
Yes. Incandescent lighting is redder than sunlight (in normal conditions) and our perception of color tries to compensate for the lighting, to see the colors of objects as expected despite the lighting being different. White balance is trying to do something similar.
Some people were sharing photos of Pantone colors against the sky, which sort of compensates for that or at least lets you adjust in post-processing. Mars Curiosity had a sundial with color swatches on it for similar reasons. But then again if you’re trying to show the quality of the light, I’m not sure that’s going to help.