p60 video looks so much better than p24 or p30.
well, the "24p film look" adds more motion blur to the scene, while 30 and 60p have less motion blur due to shorter exposure times, giving the footage a more "staccato" feel... so, when somebody says "I like film look" they actually don't like the sharp experience of faster video.
if you would care to look at the profile of the original photographer, you could make a educated guess, and derive that it is probably in Kronach, Germany.
Michel J wrote: >I setting it based on the .jpeg (I don't have the .nef lol) so as you can see: > I respect the atmosphere, the tungsten lights are not white but rightly> yellow => Cyan 4%, Magenta 4%, Yellow 44% (so my representation is > not "cool" but "balanced" as well as I can do, accordingly to the > circumstances...) as you can see behind, the wall of the church, to the > right of the tree, is "neutral" (R=123 G=124, B=122). The same about > a spot of light under the tree (R=162 G=150, B=158).
Dear Michel,I really have no idea how in the world you get the idea to measure colors of a photo from the internet in CMYK... there are so many things wrong with it, I don't even know where to begin... CMYK is used for printing (mostly on paper), and the conversion from RGB to CMYK completely depends on the color profiles, the printing technique, the printer and the inks used. in other words, it is the most inconsistent, and in this context, most useless method to specify a color.
you choose to base your "color correction" on a tiny spot in the image, a small section of (grey?) wall that is probably illuminated with a fluorescent light (which has usually a nice green/pink color cast, and is certainly not neutral). i have no idea why you would choose that, since it is not representative of the whole image.
you also claim that the snow under the tree should be R=162 G=150, B=158. those RGB values are not grey, they are purple. if those appear grey on your screen, then it is certainly time for a good screen calibration session, because your screen would be really off. and as I said, making the snow in front of the tree purple really kills the whole image/scene... and the tree in your version isn't even green anymore, it turned into this lifeless grey thing.
> So AWB is too much yellowish imho (of pro reprographer)your theories might work in your field of expertise (reprography), but you are approaching the WB discussion for this image from an awkward technical angle, and not from an angle a photographer would choose. A photo has to convey emotions, it is not a clockwork that needs repair.
> About my experience: the WB will be callibrated when shooting when shooting JPG, yes, the camera (AWB) decides based in the camera internal raw data what the best WB should be, tweaks the data, and generates the jpg. RAW just records the color temp as a suggested value in the RAW file, and leaves the actual WB to whatever app the user is using.
> if not you can have some metamerism and loss of > saturation => loss of time/money in post-production too).
this is exactly what I was saying above... you approach it from a technical angle... as if metamerism would mean anything to anybody... generally, the better your camera, the less metamerism matters (better chips, better processors, better bit depth etc). and yes, if this image would have had been the wrong WB, it would have had been very difficult to "rescue" it from a jpg.
> So using AWB is the proof of a wrong control of the camera.this generalization is the proof that you don't really know how the AWB works in camera (each make and model is using a different algorithm, some are good, some are bad, but I would say most do a better job than your "color correction").Maybe the OP knew how the WB works in his camera, and knows when to trust it?
> And it's not becaus someone won, tha't we have to agree his choice :-)no, nobody has to vote for something they don't like.
but I am curious: why did you remove your image from the challenge after the votes came in? you didn't like being #58 out of 78 for your creative photoshop work?
Michel J wrote: > Well, if you see a "purple" colour in the sky, maybe it's about your screen.
very unlikely... it's a calibrated setup (kinda a necessity for a pro pg)... besides, I was talking about the snow in your version, not the sky. the snow in your version looks unattractive, and now that i see both of them next to each other, i think the original is way better.
> It's true that this photo won but with 29 votes only (all in all)
Does it matter how many votes he got? there are so many contests, and only a limited amount of "judges", so he may have gotten a couple of his friends and family to vote for him... so what?
> who would like to believe, that photographers wanted to vote for a photo> taken with this kind of typical mistake: "auto WB"? Joke: not me.
I don't understand your comment. there are occasions where auto WB does a good job, no matter what camera brand.
> If this vote is correct it will represent how the photographers saw Christmas
not "other photographers", but other users on dpreview... and yes, it is a contest for the public opinion, not a technical contest. they are judged by anybody who feels like voting, and voting is a very emotional process.
> So the previous contribution of Mescamesh (Smokers) was too poorly > evaluated in relation to its artistic value imho. I like very much his B/W !
again, this is not about artistic value, it is about public opinion.
Michel J wrote: > /Less is more/ in this case, and I can vote for a photo well balanced so...
Well, you can certainly suggest your opinion about a different white balance, but the OP had decided to go with a very warm/golden look, and he won the challenge with his decision.
your suggested WB looks IMO too cool in comparison, and the snow starts turning into a strange purple/brown/orange color mix that doesn't look quite holiday to me.
happy new year
congrats to the winner, and the runner ups. well deserved.
Michel J wrote: > Re: WOW: Nice vote for a noisy photo !
michel:please tell me, what is so noisy about this photo?