Science for the Curious Photographer, 2nd Edition, has been published

[Charles Sidney]

I am happy to report that Science for the Curious Photographer, 2 Edition has just been published by Routledge/Focal Press. I have received paperback copies, but I have not yet seen the hardback edition. The eBook edition is listed on the Routledge web site and a Kindle edition is also available.

The second edition has been extensively updated and new material has been added on digital cameras, panoramic and infrared photography, new technologies, anomalous color vision, and the operation of the eye/mind system. This edition has 286 pages compared to 185 pages in the first edition. The extra space allows for full page width to be allocated to almost every figure and photograph and for expanded table of contents and index.

 

[Iliah Borg]

Very interesting, thank you. Table on contents looks pretty extensive.

 

[Xasan]

I have first edition. It uncritically quotes Ken Rockwell, saying:

Digital cameras are excused from most of the color conversion filters, since you dial these in as white balance settings. —HTTP://www.kenrockwell.com/TECH/FILTERS.HTM

 

[Charles Sidney]

The book does not quote Ken Rockwell, but makes the true state that "The effects of these (color) filters can be simulated by digital processing and are no longer necessary except for UV and IR photography where visible light must be blocked." That is my experience.

 

[Xasan]

The book does not quote Ken Rockwell

but makes the true state that "The effects of these (color) filters can be simulated by digital processing and are no longer necessary except for UV and IR photography where visible light must be blocked."

It can't be simulated for the simple reason that white balance is linear brightness manipulation to compensate for the underexposure of individual color channels.

That is my experience.

I can scan and correct a shot taken with daylight-balanced film under wrong light. That's my experience. Only the quality degrades.

 

[Charles Sidney]

You are right, there is a quote at the beginning of the chapter - not in the author's text. I apologize.

 

[Iliah Borg]

I have first edition. It uncritically quotes Ken Rockwell, saying:

Digital cameras are excused from most of the color conversion filters, since you dial these in as white balance settings. —HTTP://www.kenrockwell.com/TECH/FILTERS.HTM

Right after that Ken writes:

"I still use a mild warming filter (81A) on all my digital cameras since I prefer the look I get, even with the WB adjusted warm." http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filters.htm

On the same page, he states:

"If the light is very cool or I want a much warmer effect I use a very warm 85C (B+W KR9 or European A9). This filter is almost as strong as the 85A (Nikon A12 or B+W KR12) daylight-to-tungsten conversion filter. I use the 85C a lot to give very warm images. I used it here to get a much warmer effect.

I use a Tiffen 812 if I'm under a tree or otherwise want to trim out a little green (same as adding magenta), in addition to warming a little more than the 81A."

 

[hjulenissen]

Is it not true that the popularity and need for physical color filters have declined dramatically with the transition from film to digital cameras, due to the convenience and precision with which color mixture can be altered in post processing of digital images?

I get that a color filter has access to the continous spectrum for modification, while your raw developer only gets to alter the combination of 3 channels. But how big a loss is that? Was it common to chose from a large set of highly irregular color filters with sharp and narrow features, or was it common to select from a small set of filters that had a «smooth» spectral behaviour that served to typically «warm or cool» the color balance?

If you have a specialized need (filter out a single-frequency laser polluting your scene) I guess that physical filtering is going to be the solution at least until we all have multispecral cameras.

-k

 

[Xasan]

Is it not true that the popularity and need for physical color filters have declined dramatically with the transition from film to digital cameras, due to the convenience and precision with which color mixture can be altered in post processing of digital images?

I get that a color filter has access to the continous spectrum for modification, while your raw developer only gets to alter the combination of 3 channels. But how big a loss is that?

You are perfectly capable of calculating the loss. If the light source is incandescent the blue channel is underexposed compared to green by a couple of stops. Not to mention that your color profile calculated for 5500K is not reliable anymore.

If you want a debate start with experimenting.

Was it common to chose from a large set of highly irregular color filters with sharp and narrow features, or was it common to select from a small set of filters that had a «smooth» spectral behaviour that served to typically «warm or cool» the color balance?

If you have a specialized need (filter out a single-frequency laser polluting your scene) I guess that physical filtering is going to be the solution at least until we all have multispecral cameras.

-k

 

[hjulenissen]

You are perfectly capable of calculating the loss. If the light source is incandescent the blue channel is underexposed compared to green by a couple of stops. Not to mention that your color profile calculated for 5500K is not reliable anymore.

If you want a debate start with experimenting.

I have offered opinion and questions. Feel free to participate or ignore, as you please.

-h

 

[Xasan]

You are perfectly capable of calculating the loss. If the light source is incandescent the blue channel is underexposed compared to green by a couple of stops. Not to mention that your color profile calculated for 5500K is not reliable anymore.

If you want a debate start with experimenting.

I have offered opinion and questions. Feel free to participate

Have you calculated the loss?