S95 testing - clear, sharp, quality photos?

[PaulRivers]

I can see from the nature of these excuses that you are dead set, a priori, against using a gray card.

I am dead set, a priori, against adding anything else of any size to my pockets, hahahaha. I'm already bordering on "is that a camera in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me? " with the amount of stuff in my pocket as it is! :-D

And for the vast majority of my photography, it is simply not possible to carry anything in any other way. I can't carry anything else while social dancing, it just doesn't work. Or while biking...I already carry enough stuff as it is I'm starting to feel like I'm spending more time preparing to go biking than I am actually biking...

I am slightly confused about which card you mean

As I said in my earlier post, I like the WhiBal gray card.

http://www.amazon.com/GENUINE-WhiBal-Certified-Neutral-Balance/dp/tags-on-product/B000ARHJPW

or

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/716944-REG/WhiBal_WB7_PK_White_Balance_G7_Pocket.html

Thanks...though since there's a keychain sized version -
http://mtapesdesign.com/whibal/



I think that might actually be small enough for me, could fit in the change pocket in my jeans...

Ok, it's $20 so I just ordered it, enough screwing around, lol.

I hope it turns out to actually be grey, as I didn't have very good luck previously doing the same thing with a white sheet of paper...gray objects seemed to work much better.

I assume from the other thread you linked to on the best way to use the expanded color chart that you've used one - you wouldn't happen to have any sample pictures from that would you?

I'm not sure what you mean: pictures of the card? pictures using the card. I have many images of the card, which were taken during the target shooting process. I do not use that card in my shots; I use the WhiBal gray card for this purpose.

I didn't mean the gray card, I meant the color chart thingy that you linked to earlier with like 24 colors on it or something...you know, this one -

 

[gollywop]

Thanks...though since there's a keychain sized version -
http://mtapesdesign.com/whibal/



I think that might actually be small enough for me, could fit in the change pocket in my jeans...

Ok, it's $20 so I just ordered it, enough screwing around, lol.

I hope it turns out to actually be grey.

Yes, it's definitely gray, and it will likely do you fine. But I think you'll find even greater milage for good colors from profiling your camera.

I assume from the other thread you linked to on the best way to use the expanded color chart that you've used one - you wouldn't happen to have any sample pictures from that would you?

I'm not sure what you mean: pictures of the card? pictures using the card. I have many images of the card, which were taken during the target shooting process. I do not use that card in my shots; I use the WhiBal gray card for this purpose.

I didn't mean the gray card, I meant the color chart thingy that you linked to earlier with like 24 colors on it or something...you know, this one -

Yes, this is what I thought you meant, and what I meant by the "card" -- although I can see the ambiguity of that term in the context of these posts. I have never used the CC24 as a gray source in any shots; I always use the WhiBal. The CC24 is too big and bulky to carry. I use it (either GM or PassPort) only for profiling.

--
gollywop

-----------

 

[PaulRivers]

Here is a comparison of the Adobe Standard profile (left) vs. the s90 custom profile (right). The Adobe Standard does fairly well with the rhodie color, but it's still not as good as the custom, and the green of the leaves is definitely off (too yellow) with the Adobe Standard.

It looks like this is the only comparison pic using the color chart, not just a grey card, right? Or does this one use a grey card to?

 

[gollywop]

Here is a comparison of the Adobe Standard profile (left) vs. the s90 custom profile (right). The Adobe Standard does fairly well with the rhodie color, but it's still not as good as the custom, and the green of the leaves is definitely off (too yellow) with the Adobe Standard.

It looks like this is the only comparison pic using the color chart, not just a grey card, right? Or does this one use a grey card to?

There are two issues: profiling and WB. The color chart is used to make the custom profiles. The gray card is used to set WB (you can also use the gray patches in the color chart to set WB, but the chart is awkward to carry around).

In the example above, both shots used the same WB, set using the gray card, but the one to the left was developed in ACR using the Adobe Standard profile, while the one to the right used the custom profile I made for my s90 using the color chart. This is not the only such comparison I gave. If you look at the first set of examples given above http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=38418241 , the last (fourth) image is also a comparison of profiles.

gollywop

-----------

 

[PaulRivers]

There are two issues: profiling and WB. The color chart is used to make the custom profiles. The gray card is used to set WB (you can also use the gray patches in the color chart to set WB, but the chart is awkward to carry around).

In the example above, both shots used the same WB, set using the gray card, but the one to the left was developed in ACR using the Adobe Standard profile, while the one to the right used the custom profile I made for my s90 using the color chart. This is not the only such comparison I gave. If you look at the first set of examples given above http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=38418241 , the last (fourth) image is also a comparison of profiles.

So do I have this straight that those photos -

1. Used a grey card that you used at (or around) the same time you took the picture

2. Used a color profile created from the color chart thingy - but that you did not have with you for those shots, you just created a generic profile with it?

And, uh, another question...if I got the color chart would that require buying Lightroom as well? I currently use DPP...just trying to make sure I would know how much I would end up spending and not buy half of it only to half to buy more...

 

[gollywop]

There are two issues: profiling and WB. The color chart is used to make the custom profiles. The gray card is used to set WB (you can also use the gray patches in the color chart to set WB, but the chart is awkward to carry around).

In the example above, both shots used the same WB, set using the gray card, but the one to the left was developed in ACR using the Adobe Standard profile, while the one to the right used the custom profile I made for my s90 using the color chart. This is not the only such comparison I gave. If you look at the first set of examples given above http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=38418241 , the last (fourth) image is also a comparison of profiles.

So do I have this straight that those photos -

1. Used a grey card that you used at (or around) the same time you took the picture

Yes, all the images on the right of the pairs used the gray card, taken in another image taken at the same time in the same lighting, to establish a proper WB. The images to the left were the results of auto WB.

2. Used a color profile created from the color chart thingy - but that you did not have with you for those shots, you just created a generic profile with it?

That is correct. I have created a profile for all my cameras. You have to do this only once. Follow the process I outline in the link I gave you above.

And, uh, another question...if I got the color chart would that require buying Lightroom as well?

Yes, either LR or PS can accommodate these profiles. There are other Raw converters that allow for profiling. RPP (Mac only), for example, can create icc profiles from target images made from the same color chart (thingy).

I currently use DPP...just trying to make sure I would know how much I would end up spending and not buy half of it only to half to buy more...

Indeed an important thing to know. But if you go this route, you'll find it is a real step (or two or three) up from DPP. It would entail shooting Raw and using the gray-card during your shooting. You can either include the gray card in the shot (usually inconspicuously or in a spot that is easily cloned out), or in another shot taken in the same lighting -- so that its WB information can be transferred.

There is no question that getting proper color is a commitment. But your original statement was that you were "disappointed" at times with the s95 color. It's not the s95. Without making a commitment like this, you are always going to have such disappointments -- with whatever camera you use.

--
gollywop

-----------

 

[PaulRivers]

I currently use DPP...just trying to make sure I would know how much I would end up spending and not buy half of it only to half to buy more...

Indeed an important thing to know. But if you go this route, you'll find it is a real step (or two or three) up from DPP. It would entail shooting Raw and using the gray-card during your shooting. You can either include the gray card in the shot (usually inconspicuously or in a spot that is easily cloned out), or in another shot taken in the same lighting -- so that its WB information can be transferred.

Hmm...it definitely sounds interesting. I'll have to give it some thought, though. I'm not the fondest of the idea of switching to Lightroom. I don't like their "database" thing, I'll have to buy new versions as I get new cameras (I know not every time, but you had to between the s90 and s95), etc. At least with the color chart it's a one-time cost, you know?

Though on the other hand, better colors would be really nice...hmm...

There is no question that getting proper color is a commitment. But your original statement was that you were "disappointed" at times with the s95 color. It's not the s95. Without making a commitment like this, you are always going to have such disappointments -- with whatever camera you use.

Well, it is the s95, my previous camera (a kodak) didn't have disappointing colors (even if it did have disappointing low light performance) for my taste. But it is interesting to see promising ways to fix it not only this camera, but also future cameras that might also have colors I find less pleasing.