Very nice Lisa - love those colors! What a sky!
--Faye
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Does anyone *pay* for natural colors?
- Thread starter Shutter.
- Start date
cUrVe
Senior Member
i guess it all comes down to a matter of perception. not all of us perceive or even accept colors to the same degree. one persons perception of unacceptable neon reds or greens, to another person may be perceived as perfectly acceptable. plus viewing digital photos on a monitor is such an inexact science, so many variables. on one monitor a photo appears to be a washed out, on another it looks very saturated, on a third it looks 'natural' or flat.
camera reviewers, by the nature of their profession, tend to view a cameras capabilities in strictly a 'record as faithfully as possible without distorting or altering the color spectrum being captured' kind of scenario. their mission relies heavily on technical evaluation which can be measured somewhat scientifically so no abberations such as personal perception should enter into the equation but unfortunately that isn't always possible. afterall in the end a human still evaluates the test results and offers their own conclusions.
on the other hand, most photo editors of magazines have much more creative freedom and are less restricted in the photos they choose so vivid and saturated photos with impact and drama are chosen to catch the attention of the public.
anyway reality is a relative thing, photographically speaking. the majority of people could see a very vivid, saturated photo of say, a street scene in some city they have never been to and think what a rich, colorful street scene. but is it reality? only people familiar with that street you would think could say for sure whether it is or not. but no, people perceive color in different degrees. some will say yes it is realistic, others will say no the colors aren't really that deep. who is right? no one is. like i said it all comes down to a matter of perception. and a part of perception is memory. and memory can affect one's perception of the colors one sees. not to mention different lighting conditions which the mind can compensate for but the camera can't.
man oh man i forgot what the point of all this was supposed to be ;-)
sorry. gotta go!
nothing serious, just off my rocker again!
it's all jim's fault anyway.
c u
camera reviewers, by the nature of their profession, tend to view a cameras capabilities in strictly a 'record as faithfully as possible without distorting or altering the color spectrum being captured' kind of scenario. their mission relies heavily on technical evaluation which can be measured somewhat scientifically so no abberations such as personal perception should enter into the equation but unfortunately that isn't always possible. afterall in the end a human still evaluates the test results and offers their own conclusions.
on the other hand, most photo editors of magazines have much more creative freedom and are less restricted in the photos they choose so vivid and saturated photos with impact and drama are chosen to catch the attention of the public.
anyway reality is a relative thing, photographically speaking. the majority of people could see a very vivid, saturated photo of say, a street scene in some city they have never been to and think what a rich, colorful street scene. but is it reality? only people familiar with that street you would think could say for sure whether it is or not. but no, people perceive color in different degrees. some will say yes it is realistic, others will say no the colors aren't really that deep. who is right? no one is. like i said it all comes down to a matter of perception. and a part of perception is memory. and memory can affect one's perception of the colors one sees. not to mention different lighting conditions which the mind can compensate for but the camera can't.
man oh man i forgot what the point of all this was supposed to be ;-)
sorry. gotta go!
nothing serious, just off my rocker again!
it's all jim's fault anyway.
c u
--cUrVe http://homepage.mac.com/curve
I always took the reviewers critisim of the 707 to be more about the lack of saturation control in camera. So if you like all your photos looking washed out you can set the camera to do it.
kev-- http://www.pbase.com/amadeusnz/galleries
kev-- http://www.pbase.com/amadeusnz/galleries
Sissy
Member
What a fun thread to read! I too am a fan of vivid colors. Much more exciting than "natural". Possibly whoever wins the next challenge could make it a "vivid colors" challenge. Although I havent posted a photo yet, I might be up to that one! Sissy
Indeed, with a little extra programming, Sony could have put that in.
R
Ron Parr
Guest
I think what people want first is accurate colors (correct hue) and second control to adjust the amount of saturation if desired - while still maintaining the correct hue.
I find Sony colors (including my S85 and shots I've seen from other folks' F707s) to be not just overly saturated, but slightly off in some cases. The saturation issue gets annoying when it blows out some colors such as red and there's just no way to recover. I feel like I've purchased a stereo without a volume control knob and I'm stuck listening at one volume level forevever, no matter how inappropriate it may be for the circumstances.
This is one of the reasons why I'm researching digital SLRs right now and will likely pay several thousand dollars to get more accurate colors. (Of course, I'll be getting other things too.)
--Ron ParrFAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.htmlGallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
I find Sony colors (including my S85 and shots I've seen from other folks' F707s) to be not just overly saturated, but slightly off in some cases. The saturation issue gets annoying when it blows out some colors such as red and there's just no way to recover. I feel like I've purchased a stereo without a volume control knob and I'm stuck listening at one volume level forevever, no matter how inappropriate it may be for the circumstances.
This is one of the reasons why I'm researching digital SLRs right now and will likely pay several thousand dollars to get more accurate colors. (Of course, I'll be getting other things too.)
--Ron ParrFAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.htmlGallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
Paul Avery
Member
People who spend this kind of money expect reasonably accurate results. My 707 produces weirdness that cannot be corrected - I too am shopping for a new camera that will let me meet the expectations of my customers for technical and travel subject material.
Shutter.
Forum Pro
Ron and Paul,
I agree that there sometimes is a problem with the accuracy of the colors. My main point, however, is that people want vivid colors (assuming they're accurate ;-) )
I agree that there sometimes is a problem with the accuracy of the colors. My main point, however, is that people want vivid colors (assuming they're accurate ;-) )
--Jim FuglestadWhy simply live and let live? Live and help live. http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries
Gordon Berg
Forum Enthusiast
I think pros like relatively 'flat' pictures out of the camera - maximizing the chances of capturing detail in both light and dark areas of the photos. Then if they want to have more saturated colors they can use software to step them up after the fact. For most of us it's an advantage to have colors out of the camera they way we prefer viewing them so we don't have to run every shot through some software.
R
Ron Parr
Guest
Check out what my S85 did to the Easter eggs in this shot.
Be sure to scroll right for some more eggs ----->
Be sure to scroll right for some more eggs ----->
This is just one example where the "Sony" colors really annoy me.
I've been going through a bunch of shots my wife took recently and just about every single one of them needs work. If I didn't know better, I'd guess that she only takes pictures of sunburned people with day-glo accessories.
--Ron ParrFAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.htmlGallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
Be sure to scroll right for some more eggs ----->
Be sure to scroll right for some more eggs ----->
This is just one example where the "Sony" colors really annoy me.
I've been going through a bunch of shots my wife took recently and just about every single one of them needs work. If I didn't know better, I'd guess that she only takes pictures of sunburned people with day-glo accessories.
--Ron ParrFAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.htmlGallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
U
Ulysses
Guest
Jim -
I'm late to the party here as I've been QUITE busy lately. But this is an interesting question.
I've always held since the days of the F505 that while the Cyber-shots are criticized for their vivid color, there is also something to be said for actual usage and appreciation of images and pictures. What do we really like?
For example, I've made the point for years that when we purchase coffee table books, or when we want family portraits taken professionally or when we go on a trip and want to capture pics of the Grand Canyon or Disneyland or Niagra Falls or Yellowstone park or Sequoia Nationial Park or Grand Cayman, we want our pics and we want our color.
Particularly is a "natural color" camera going to be a bit less satisfying if you take it straight from the camera and try to print it out on any of today's class of photo-quality printers. They just look a little drab, in general. So the user then has to constantly tweak their images the other way so as to get the color they way they want.
Now, take a look on the other side of the equation. Most of those neutral cameras produce colors that don't "get in the way". In other words, they may be rather flat, but the colors tend to be more in balance with one another. Therefore, when making adjustments to the color, it can be a bit easier depending upon the subject matter. For example, with the F707, taking a picture of a bright red rose can be problematic at times, depending upon the rose and the position of the sun in the sky. Red is a problem color for any camera, but more exaggerated a problem in the F707. A more neutral camera can present an easier editing job here. Both cameras will require work, but one may present less of a challenge editing-wise.-- Ulysses
I'm late to the party here as I've been QUITE busy lately. But this is an interesting question.
I've always held since the days of the F505 that while the Cyber-shots are criticized for their vivid color, there is also something to be said for actual usage and appreciation of images and pictures. What do we really like?
For example, I've made the point for years that when we purchase coffee table books, or when we want family portraits taken professionally or when we go on a trip and want to capture pics of the Grand Canyon or Disneyland or Niagra Falls or Yellowstone park or Sequoia Nationial Park or Grand Cayman, we want our pics and we want our color.
Particularly is a "natural color" camera going to be a bit less satisfying if you take it straight from the camera and try to print it out on any of today's class of photo-quality printers. They just look a little drab, in general. So the user then has to constantly tweak their images the other way so as to get the color they way they want.
Now, take a look on the other side of the equation. Most of those neutral cameras produce colors that don't "get in the way". In other words, they may be rather flat, but the colors tend to be more in balance with one another. Therefore, when making adjustments to the color, it can be a bit easier depending upon the subject matter. For example, with the F707, taking a picture of a bright red rose can be problematic at times, depending upon the rose and the position of the sun in the sky. Red is a problem color for any camera, but more exaggerated a problem in the F707. A more neutral camera can present an easier editing job here. Both cameras will require work, but one may present less of a challenge editing-wise.-- Ulysses
U
Ulysses
Guest
At least the fluorescent nature of the colors matches the new Crayon colors that most children enjoy these days. ;-))
U
Ulysses
Guest
Now, here's the thing. I know what the camera is probably doing here as I know how my own roses and peonies turn out in-camera when I'm standing right there in front of them. However, I have no idea what YOUR flower looked like. Therefore, when I see the shot you posted, it looks just beautiful. In fact, it seems like it might present a relatively easy editing job to produce something very pleasing and perhaps even acceptable.
This isn't at all the worst that can happen with Cyber-shot colors.
This isn't at all the worst that can happen with Cyber-shot colors.
-- Ulysses
U
Ulysses
Guest
I know what you mean. But no need to pay more than two thousand dollars.
Of course, you're going to have all of those heavy lenses to pay for, too.
... Foveon...
Of course, you're going to have all of those heavy lenses to pay for, too.
... Foveon...
Ravi Pendkar
Member
good observation.
I like the colors of my S85 as they come out.
Velvia slide film, which is very popular, can only be described as gaudy.
There is portrait slide film like Astia just for capturing skin tones.
What you use depends on the application.
In digital, its very simple to saturate/desaturate colors.
'natural' colors - thought that style was finished in the days of Leonardo...
-Ravi Pendkar
I like the colors of my S85 as they come out.
Velvia slide film, which is very popular, can only be described as gaudy.
There is portrait slide film like Astia just for capturing skin tones.
What you use depends on the application.
In digital, its very simple to saturate/desaturate colors.
'natural' colors - thought that style was finished in the days of Leonardo...
-Ravi Pendkar
Philippe Frizé
Active member
As someone already noted, the important thing is to get balanced colors. From that standpoint, I can live (most of the time) with the F-707's "vivid" reds.
And I dislike those ridiculously saturated blue skies "naturally" produced by those noble, film-based, medium- or large-format cameras - see photo.net for an abundant display of such "natural" landscapes.
My point is that deliberate oversaturation looks often worse than native color imbalance.
Philippe
And I dislike those ridiculously saturated blue skies "naturally" produced by those noble, film-based, medium- or large-format cameras - see photo.net for an abundant display of such "natural" landscapes.
My point is that deliberate oversaturation looks often worse than native color imbalance.
Philippe
Hi Ulysses;
Make no mistake, I'm super-satisfied with the colors that come out of my 707. The actual peony in my post is pretty much the color you see. As is this Dahlia:
If the colors were less vibrant, I'd be questioning my camera choice.
Make no mistake, I'm super-satisfied with the colors that come out of my 707. The actual peony in my post is pretty much the color you see. As is this Dahlia:
If the colors were less vibrant, I'd be questioning my camera choice.
--Faye
Detlef J
Leading Member
Your right Jim. I do have no problems with the "vivid" colors produced by the DA. In fact, I like it, I have not to enhance it later for the family.
I only have problems sometimes with wrong colors. I mostly don't remember right if the red was "so intense" or not, but I remember it was red and not orangey. That's the only problem, not in all shots, but sometimes...
I had a thread here with colors of a specific orchid. The colors were completely wrong under all conditions, I was not able to get it on the film, oops sorry, MS. Bad for an documentation, it needed a lot of post processing to fix that.
Anyway, I would not change to another camera at time. OK OK, Canon D60, but it's twice the prize and more bulky.
Deje
To an Iris, vivid IS natural! ;-)
--* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Linda (aka Lindy Loo)New 707 owner, but learning every day...thanks to this forum!
Beautiful! Nothing wishy-washy about that color!
--Faye
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Linda (aka Lindy Loo)
New 707 owner, but learning every day...thanks to this forum!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum