White correction etc.

[raptor]

Edit by moderator: below is a continuation of this topic

He,

Thnks for the correct pic. I doesn't exactly know how I could corrected the picture.

Anyway picture was taken in RAW.

Regards,

John

[Glidepath]

not oke in my book,

there is NO white light at EHRD as far as i know, hence a white a/c on the PSed-photo may look nice white, but stands way to far from reality.
taking away 1/3 of 1/2 of the slightly to heavy yellow should suffice.

All else is 'bewerkte fotografie'. (photografic art)

like the photographer said, he does use RAW-shooting mode, so following your own remarks of right colours: by using (to much) correction via PS, you (the photoshopper) strayed from real colours and likewise for the contrast.

[FALCONCREST]

there is NO white light at EHRD as far as i know, hence a white a/c on the PSed-photo may look nice white, but stands way to far from reality.
taking away 1/3 of 1/2 of the slightly to heavy yellow should suffice.

All else is 'bewerkte fotografie'. (photografic art)

I do not agree with your opinion. what's reality with digital photography.

In mhu digital photography demands correction colours etc. White Balance temperatures differ a lot. That problem is fixed by setting the camera's white balance setting to ATW ( auto white ). if not, you'll end up with colour casts you can't imagine.

In night-time conditions, I prefer to make a "witje' ( using a white surface to measure the colour temperature and set the camera accordingly.)
Shooting in RAW, applying PS afterwards.
You may like the result, or not.






BTW: Our eyes have a very good "auto white balance" ; if you are in orange apron light, you still "see" wat is white, blue or green...

[Key]

In night-time conditions, I prefer to make a "witje' ( using a white surface to measure the colour temperature and set the camera accordingly.)
Shooting in RAW, applying PS afterwards.
You may like the result, or not.

Absolutely right. But for taste, I tend to agree with Glidepath on this one (though I would tell it differently ).
Correcting to real white gives a surreal result in this shot, for me the best option would be somewhere between Falconcrest and Raptor's photo. Btw, 'witje' is not necessary/useful when shooting raw, because the recording is just what the sensor sees - no correction (hence the name RAW). All correction can and must be done afterwards, using color droppers in PS for example. Or do I miss something in what you say?

Erik

... The Orion example is beautiful btw, but also a bit on the 'art side' to my taste.

[FALCONCREST]

Btw, 'witje' is not necessary/useful when shooting raw, because the recording is just what the sensor sees - no correction (hence the name RAW). All correction can and must be done afterwards, using colour droppers in PS for example. Or do I miss something in what you say?

NO, you're right. Result of manual white balancing ("witje maken") applies only to Jpegs. Raw is indeed converted afterwards.

btw: Photography is in my opinion Art...

[Thijs]

btw: Photography is in my opinion Art...

The art of making a realistic impression or to create a nice picture? In my opinion the first one has to do with composition etcetra and the second one has to do with Photoshop skills.

Comparing the two orion pictures the "yellow" one is the art of photographing, right position, sharp picture, nice composition etcetra. The "white" one is the art of working with Photoshop.

[jaah]

Very nice pics of the Luftwaffe Airbus

[marcel32us]

Comparing the two orion pictures the "yellow" one is the art of photographing, right position, sharp picture, nice composition etcetra. The "white" one is the art of working with Photoshop.

So back in analog times you guys all just used polaroid cameras I suppose??

IMHO creating prints from your negatives is nothing else then old fashioned photoshopping. So it has never been any different.

For the record: I like the "white pic" a lot more.

Marcel

PS: shouldn't this discussion be moved to the Photography forum??

[Richard from Rotterdam]

I beg to differ on your views on applying the white balance.

First of all, the camera will record what it sees, which will usually be the same what you see (as in a RAW image). The Airbus at RTM at night will look yellowish to the human eye. We will recognize it as white, because we know it is white in daylight.

Setting the white balance, is correcting the light temperature to a daylight situation, when white light will have a temperature of 6400K. So what you do in circumstances of night or artificial light (i.e. indoors) is tell your camera what white should look like, compared to a normal daylight situation.

So although white will result into true white in your image after setting the right white balance, it does not have to be a true reflection of the lightsituation a human eye sees it.

Using the AWB, you let the camera select the whites by itself. Although with the current cameras you'll get a good average white, you might still be off a bit.

[Glidepath]

Comparing the two orion pictures the "yellow" one is the art of photographing, right position, sharp picture, nice composition etcetra. The "white" one is the art of working with Photoshop.

So back in analog times you guys all just used polaroid cameras I suppose??

IMHO creating prints from your negatives is nothing else then old fashioned photoshopping. So it has never been any different.
.................?

well almost that. this action implies more than 'printing' alone. Its more like retouching, which is now at hand to anyone via PS and the like.

that said
call it what you want. I, me, moi, I do not like this particular A310 outcome. (interesting to see, what my humble opinion brings to the surface) and Neither do I like the P-3 'after' (shan't tell why here, to avoid more discussion. For him who concerns, PM-ask me if you must. )
But yes, UR handy with PS.

BTW many (fashion, portret and so) photographers (including lots if pro's ) did use polaroids over the past few decades. just to let you know.

BTW 2
Yes photography is art, but that is only true sometimes, most are not. Snap shot photography is (useally) not, neither is 'reportagefotografie', 'newspaper photograpy' etcetcetc.
most aeroplane pics are not to be qualified as art.
DISCLAIMER (exept yours, dear reader, and mine)

and retoucing a pic, well all nice and fine, but please remmber: always mention: 'artist impression' or 'bewekrte foto.'otherwise one could think in case of the A310 that nightphotografie at EHRD can be done with white light (Quod non!). Unless you bring your own set of Whities and loads of batteries. ( i know of a guy who does!)

[Key]

Think it all comes down to the intentions of the photog, and the appreciation (or lack of...) by his viewers. My personal preference is to try and make a scene look as good as I can, while preserving the realistic elements like weather, colours and lighting.

I do find it fascinating though, to see what info can be wrenched out of an image by processing (not manipulating) it. Obviously, the line between processing and manipulation can be very thin, like in this example. No 'real changes' are made to the photo, just the generally accepted steps of colour correction, likely black- and white-point setting and sharpening. In this particular case however, colour correction makes the scene look actually different than it did in the dark. And there's your choice or preference...

Erik