Photographing reality

[brianj]

Has anyone tried to compare the taken photo to the actual scene that was photographed. I have been attempting to do this to find the settings and PP that comes closest to the contrast and colour of the real scene.

Unfortunately I cannot have my camera in the same room as the scene, so this makes it more difficult, but I must say that with the F100, neither STD or CHROME clour comes anywhere near the exact representation straight out of the camera.

The closest I can get to reality is using CHROME colour and EV=1/3 then PP with contrast =-5 and saturation=-10 in PSP9

Using STD colour setting, which is closest to the F100 default, I cannot get anywhere near the look of reality. No wonder people say that Canon delivers the most reliable colour and look.

This example was taken on a bright sunny morning about 7:00am, don't worry about the blotches on my sensor, it was taken through a dirty window.

There is no setting that delivers reality from the F100 unfortunately as the best setting would be somewhere between STD and CHROME colour which is not available, so every image needs to be PP. I have made a script to do this.

The top image is CHROME mode directly from the camera, and the lower image is the PP one which looks realistic to me. How does it look on your monitor?



Brian

 

[PAUL TILL]

I prefer the top one. What's the mark in the sky is that on the sensor or on your lens?

Paul.

 

[fadgadget]

Brian,

Who wants that...
Ill take the chrome mode any day!

cheers/f.

 

[brianj]

I prefer the top one. What's the mark in the sky is that on the sensor or on your lens?

It was shot through a dirty window.

That's interesting that you prefer the top one, its a little bit above reality, like a postcard, but in many cases this would be pleasing to the viewer.

Brian

 

[brianj]

Brian,

Who wants that...
Ill take the chrome mode any day!

This is interesting feedback, I also prefer the chrome mode, and it makes superb prints, but I didn't know whether most people thought it was a bit over the top or not.

Brian

 

[Kevin Coppalotti]

Number two looks to be the most realistic on my monitor. Green vegetation in australia is rarely deep vivid green unless heavy fertiliser is used (golf course, farm crop). Skies here on the other hand can have a glorious deep blue, especially in rural areas free from pollution, which is why I like the use of a circular polariser for adding punch to landscapes.
--
Kevin Coppalotti
http://maxhr.zenfolio.com/
http://razorsharp.smugmug.com

 

[fadgadget]

I've always preferred the chrome/velvia setting...
Used to shot it all the time, so used to metering it now...

Yes - it prints very well!

cheers/f.

 

[morey000]

When you find a camera that can duplicate the dynamic range and auto white balance of your eye.... buy it.

Truth is only how you imagine it.

--

 

[Ron777]

I'm the opposite, I have a Canon, it gets things 'real' but the shots are boring as anything. I have to PP to get them looking good, my goals are to make things look like I wish they looked instead of reailty. I guess I need a fuji and you need a canon lol
--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[Velvet Ant]

Brian, I prefer #2.

--
Jada

 

[brianj]

Brian, I prefer #2.

Thanks for the feedback, I agree on the second, it was as close the the real scene as I could get.

Brian

 

[brianj]

I'm the opposite, I have a Canon, it gets things 'real' but the shots are boring as anything. I have to PP to get them looking good, my goals are to make things look like I wish they looked instead of reailty. I guess I need a fuji and you need a canon lol
--

I know what you mean Ron, but I like to start being creative with an accurate image.

Brian

 

[bzzz]

The main part of the scene, the foreground, is underexposed in both. Confirm it with a histogram if you must. The Chrome mode has increased the contrast too much and blocked up the leaves in dark shadows.

Here is a slightly more realistic look, mainly making it brighter and lifting the shadows a bit, but there was only so much I could do with the high contrast already dialed in. The detail on the white wall of the shack is a bit blown with this quick fix (would have worked with the F200 shot in 6MP DR mode), but the strange color cast in the foreground is mostly gone. I think I'd tone down the contrast a bit more (and not shot in Chrome to begin with).

 

[brianj]

The main part of the scene, the foreground, is underexposed in both. Confirm it with a histogram if you must. The Chrome mode has increased the contrast too much and blocked up the leaves in dark shadows.

Here is a slightly more realistic look, mainly making it brighter and lifting the shadows a bit, but there was only so much I could do with the high contrast already dialed in. The detail on the white wall of the shack is a bit blown with this quick fix (would have worked with the F200 shot in 6MP DR mode), but the strange color cast in the foreground is mostly gone. I think I'd tone down the contrast a bit more (and not shot in Chrome to begin with).

I understand what you are saying and agree, but as I own an F100, then I have endeavored to get the best out of it that is possible. Although it may be possible to get higher IQ from the F200 DR system, and I don't doubt that, what we were questioning in the F200 p-mode thread was the overall value of DR no matter how it is produced when it delivers such flat looking images. I know you can individually compensate in PP and sort them out, but there is a different amount of DR decompression needed depending on the DR% used. This means that each image has to be PP manually and individually which is something most people want to avoid. I and many others like a one setting camera that just delives the goods, which is why we buy P&S, apart from the small size beneifit.

I have also spent many hours trying to achieve realism using STD colour mode which does have the benefits you have described, but the whole colour rendition is different. Using the images I have posted as an example, the bright sky would have slightly more green content, but if you remove it uniformly accross the image then the white shed side become slightly magenta. The problem is that you have to selectively correct the colour to get any thing like realism. On top of this, the contrast and saturation must be increased to get the correct redition of the original, and all this leads to lots of PP work.

The correct setting for the F100 colour and saturation would be somewhere between STD and CHROME I think, but that is not possible.

I have said this in this thread as I don't want to cause any more confusion in the other thread: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=33422097

To give an idea, this is the same scene in STD colour with no PP and DR=100% (ISO100) and I don't find it realistic or satisfying:



I do appreciate your input on this matter as all input helps.

Brian

 

[Ron777]

Good point, start 'real' then create

I'm the opposite, I have a Canon, it gets things 'real' but the shots are boring as anything. I have to PP to get them looking good, my goals are to make things look like I wish they looked instead of reailty. I guess I need a fuji and you need a canon lol
--

I know what you mean Ron, but I like to start being creative with an accurate image.

Brian

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[NickPix]

Hi Brian,

It's definitely #2 for me ...I find a 'std' colour setting (I use 'Provia' on F200EXR, 'Std' on LX3, etc) a preferable starting point, and even then, can still produce images that are more saturated than their real appearance.

The massive benefit of Fuji compact cameras - and also something I notice on E-P1 images is - to my eyes/laptop monitor - a certain colour rendition and overall balance that is more 'realistic' than most others.

It's - fortunately or unfortunately - also a factor in my using LX3 a little less these days, and the F200EXR is already up to 5k images in only a few weeks. (It's incidentally also a reason GF-1 wouldn't be a contender for my money at this point...Panasonic have more work to do on this aspect).

Fuji colour rendition is in my own experience the very best of all the compacts I've tried & owned, whether seeking 'realism' in even outdoor shots in the usual English 'grey' weather, or producing a jpeg image that responds well to pp ...not all necessarily do.

All the best,
Nick
--
New & updated galleries, reviews & more at :
http://nickbland.wordpress.com (NEW)
http://nickbland.zenfolio.com (D3/D200/F30/F100fd/F200EXR/CX1/LX3/TZ-3)
http://www.proweddingphotos.co.uk (D3/D200)

 

[brianj]

Thanks for assistance on this question all who have responded.

It seems that the look of the second image may be preferred but would be better achieved by approaching it from the STD colour setting with low initial contrast than from the CHROME high contrast initial setting.

Because images with different DR require different decompression, I will go back to one of my earlier preffered settings on the F100 of fixed DR=200% (ISO200) and EV=-1/3

This will capture highlights well while not raising the noise in the shadows too much, and will allow a constant increase in contrast to be applied in PP which allows batch processing to be done.

I have just tested a few of my old images done with this setting, and it appears as if they might respond well to an additional contrast of about +10 to get a similair look as number two image above.

As someone in another thread pointed out, there may be up to 14 different DR settings possible on the F200, and that is without varying EV of colour settings. This is not only unmanagable at image taking time, but nearly impossible to PP for accuracy and consistancy.

The F100 is almost as bad, and I think there is some benefit to trying to reduce this to less possibilities and achieve a more consitant approach to the whole workflow.

Brian