How do you take a representative photo of a red or purple bloom?

[Shiva]

Thanks for taking the time Dot. I'm steadily improving my photo set up and this really helps.

 

[Lanmark]

Thanks Dot!

 

[Erythrone]

My problem is not the white balance but the lack of light. It takes very good light to get a good red, then, as you say, you can ajust the intensity of the light in photoshop or a similar program to get more details, something you can't do very well if the light is insufficient to begin with. Now that I have much brighter lights available, I find it a lot more easier to get more accurate colours. But I'll read the guide again, I always find something new when I read it.

When there is no enough light it is difficult for the camera to adjust itself to the color of the light.

 

[Erythrone]

"Why do bright red flowers overexpose?"

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&message=38349987&changemode=1

 

[SlipperFan]

When there is no enough light it is difficult for the camera to adjust itself to the color of the light.

True, when the light is very low.

"Why do bright red flowers overexpose?"

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&message=38349987&changemode=1

To simplify this a bit:
http://www.kollewin.com/blog/electromagnetic-spectrum/
Notice that red is at the low end of the visible spectrum. Red is a dark color, hence the meter's tendency to overexpose it.

 

[Ricky]

The gray card doesn't really have anything to do with rendering color, as such.

Sorry Dot, but that is definitely wrong.

"A gray card is a middle gray reference, typically used together with a reflective light meter, as a way to produce consistent image exposure and/or color in film and photography." (Wikipedia)

I don´t want to write so much, please read here:
http://www.digitalartsphotography.com/instructions.htm
https://www.ehow.com/how_5986275_use-grey-card.html
http://www.photoshop-tutorials-plus.com/grey-card.html

 

[SlipperFan]

My point, Ricky, is that it is not the gray card that renders color accurately, whether digitally or film. If it were true, then one would not need to match the film with the light source, and white balance would be unnecessary.

What happens if you use a gray card under florescent lights, without fixing the white balance for that light source. Will you get accurate color?

One of your sources clearly states: "The grey card is put into the image so that the light falling on the subject also falls on the grey card. The white balance reading is taken from the card..." (Emphasis mine)

None of your sources negate that concept, so sorry, Ricky. my statement that the gray card doesn't really have anything to do with rendering color, as such, stands. It's white balance, whether with a gray card or a white card, that determines color accuracy.

I didn't check Wikipedia, but if it leaves out matching film to light source and white balance, it certainly is incomplete.

 

[Ricky]

What happens if you use a gray card under florescent lights, without fixing the white balance for that light source. Will you get accurate color?

If you use a modern 3-band fluorescent light - yes !

The automatic camera white balance will surely fail, but the correction afterwords with a RAW program, Photoshop or another grafic program will correct this. That´s the advantage of the digital work flow instead of the photografic film: you fix the white balance after taking the picture on your computer using the grey card as a standard.

If you look at the picture I showed some messages above, it was made under fluorescent light. The raw picture was totally wrong (the flower color was nearly blue) but after the white balance on the grey card in my RAW program the color was the the same as under natural light.

Digital workfow, fast computer and modern software (HDR, stacking, ...) gives us so many new possibilities to create more natural pictures than a pure camera could ever do.

 

[Ricky]

One of your sources clearly states: "The grey card is put into the image so that the light falling on the subject also falls on the grey card. The white balance reading is taken from the card..."

Right, that´s what I say all the time.

Maybe we have a misunderstanding, in the digital world the words "white balance" and "color balance" stay for the same: the correction of the color temperature of the light source, it has nothing to do with the brightness.

The link will make all clear: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/white-balance.htm

 

[SlipperFan]

Certainly there is a big difference between what I term as "taking" a picture (camera) and "making" a picture (computer). Certainly using a neutral gray in Photoshop RAW or jpeg using the RAW setting in Photoshop will help with color correction after the photo has been made by the camera.

My discussion was about "taking" the picture. Not everyone has Photoshop, so I chose to keep that aspect of image-making pretty much out of my comments. I only brought in the sliders concept because I think that is fairly common to image-editing programs.

Perhaps we do have a misunderstanding. But I stand by my statement that in "taking" a picture, the gray card controls exposure and white balance controls color. That is the essence of that quote. Light "quantity" is measured by the meter, using a gray card; light "quality" (or color) is controlled digitally by how the camera sensors "see" the light, or white balance.

 

[Ricky]

Certainly there is a big difference between what I term as "taking" a picture (camera) and "making" a picture (computer). Certainly using a neutral gray in Photoshop RAW or jpeg using the RAW setting in Photoshop will help with color correction after the photo has been made by the camera.

Using RAW instead of JPG or TIF there is no difference between "taking" and "making" a (digital) picture. You get all the information directly from the camera chip without the preprocessing of the camara software and without loosing any information.
In a RAW program (not Photoshop) you do these things, that the camera would do automatically if you let decide the camera software and prefer to get JPF and TIF. But with a RAW program you have the full control over the picture.
All the informations of the camera chip remains in a RAW picture until you decide to "process" the picture into TIF or JPG. I think it´s better to forget the "old analog" way of picture development, learn how the "new digital" way works and use it´s powerful possibilities.

The best thing ist when taking a picture you can focus youself on the scene not on the camera technic.

 

[SlipperFan]

Let us not lose sight of the fact that not everybody's camera does RAW, and not every image editing program can import every RAW format. Not even Photoshop, unless you always have the latest upgrade. Remember that Nikon's RAW format is somewhat different from Fuji's which is all not the same as Canon's, etc., etc.

Let us not lose old knowledge just because we have new.

 

[Ricky]

Dot, you don´t need a expensive camera, a RAW program or photoshop to correct the color with the help of a grey card.

You can do this with a JPG or TIF image almost as good, using a cheap grafic program (PSP or PhotoLine) or even freeware (Gimp, ....). If your camera makes RAW but you won´t pay money for Adobe Lightroom (or others) there exist RawTherapee as a very good freeware. RawTherapee works with nearly every RAW file.

Working with RAW makes life easier, because you can use the full information of the chip not only the 8 bit of a image file. That´s all.

I don´t have a DSLR, LightShop or PhotoShop. I use the RAW program that came with my camera, PSP as grafic program and some freeware tools for the rest. I prefer to spend my money for orchids than an expensive camera and software collection.

 

[chrismende]

Wonderfully clear, Dot!

 

[chrismende]

Thanks for that link! I love to dive back into this stuff!

 

[chrismende]

Ricky, I think Dot has addressed the basic issues very well for people who aren't skilled with their cameras or photographic software. Your mention of the freeware is nice for me (a knowledgeable photographer who isn't yet applying her knowledge to her flower images) to know, though! I'd much rather spend money now on orchids and greenhouse equipment than on more software!