Prev: photogenic sites, Oregon
Next: Hydroponic Pepper Photo
From: DanP on 13 Apr 2010 07:42
On 13 Apr, 11:51, Bubba <digitalr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 5:09 am, DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't see a reson to complain about the reds:http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=sx1+red&m=text
>
> They're gorgeous shots. Frankly, I see some flare in the fourth
> photograph in the first (top) row, where the bright red leaves are in
> bright sunlight, against a very blue sky. Thank you for posting all of
> these. I learned the phrase "red flare" from the photo-editing company
> (British) whose software I use, and it's only in overcast or rain that
> my reds do not appear blotchy.
>
> Great work!

If you look at the EXIF data for that shot
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35614822(a)N08/3878180969/meta/ you will
notice it has been edited in Photoshop.
So the colours are not what the camera captured.
These shots are straigh out of camera (SOOC)
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=sx1+sooc&m=text .


DanP
From: Chris Malcolm on 13 Apr 2010 18:09
Bubba <digitalrube(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 5:09?am, DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't see a reson to complain about the reds:http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=sx1+red&m=text

> They're gorgeous shots. Frankly, I see some flare in the fourth
> photograph in the first (top) row, where the bright red leaves are in
> bright sunlight, against a very blue sky. Thank you for posting all of
> these. I learned the phrase "red flare" from the photo-editing company
> (British) whose software I use, and it's only in overcast or rain that
> my reds do not appear blotchy.

Which suggests that the problem may be that the reds you're
photographing are fluorescent, since those conditions cut out the UV
that the fluorescence exploits.

--
Chris Malcolm
From: Martin Brown on 14 Apr 2010 03:33
Bubba wrote:
> On Apr 13, 5:09 am, DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't see a reson to complain about the reds:http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=sx1+red&m=text
>
> They're gorgeous shots. Frankly, I see some flare in the fourth
> photograph in the first (top) row, where the bright red leaves are in
> bright sunlight, against a very blue sky. Thank you for posting all of

Are you aware that the images appear in a different order and selections
each time you press refresh ? I saw no red leaves on a blue sky.

If you want to refer to one image post a direct link. The photo in the
position you describe was a close up of yellow stamens against a red
flower. Even better post one of your own which actually shows this
mythical problem you keep harping on about.

> these. I learned the phrase "red flare" from the photo-editing company
> (British) whose software I use, and it's only in overcast or rain that
> my reds do not appear blotchy.
>
> Great work!

You are may be tending to burn out the highlights in the red channel
then in the initial exposure in strong light. There is a small price to
be paid for having a Bayer sensor in terms of colour resolution but I
would never describe it as a red flair. I suggest you unlearn it.

Most common flair at edge of field is purple or green from chromatic
aberrations in the lens.

Regards,
Martin Brown
From: Chrlz on 14 Apr 2010 03:46
On Apr 14, 8:09 am, Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Bubba <digitalr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 13, 5:09?am, DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I don't see a reson to complain about the reds:http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=sx1+red&m=text
> > They're gorgeous shots. Frankly, I see some flare in the fourth
> > photograph in the first (top) row, where the bright red leaves are in
> > bright sunlight, against a very blue sky. Thank you for posting all of
> > these. I learned the phrase "red flare" from the photo-editing company
> > (British) whose software I use, and it's only in overcast or rain that
> > my reds do not appear blotchy.
>
> Which suggests that the problem may be that the reds you're
> photographing are fluorescent, since those conditions cut out the UV
> that the fluorescence exploits.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm

Exactly. As you told him in the other thread, yes? And shouldn't it
be "irredescent"... :o) sorry.

I was always under the impression that the blown reds issue was indeed
caused by the non-visible high levels of near infrared (same problem
at the other end, with near UV) and also the chroma subsampling as
mentioned above.

Different cameras use different filtering, sensors and processing so
it will vary, and it may eb that the poster has just had bad luck with
his subjects - *but who could tell if he won't post examples*???? I'd
like to see the exif on any examples, to take a long hard look at the
camera settings..

If you have a camera with an issue, then the advice to use a pale
green filter (or an IR-cut filter, maybe?) was correct, as was
shooting raw.
From: Jeff Jones on 14 Apr 2010 13:12
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Chrlz <mark.thomas.7(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 14, 8:09�am, Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Bubba <digitalr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Apr 13, 5:09?am, DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I don't see a reson to complain about the reds:http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=sx1+red&m=text
>> > They're gorgeous shots. Frankly, I see some flare in the fourth
>> > photograph in the first (top) row, where the bright red leaves are in
>> > bright sunlight, against a very blue sky. Thank you for posting all of
>> > these. I learned the phrase "red flare" from the photo-editing company
>> > (British) whose software I use, and it's only in overcast or rain that
>> > my reds do not appear blotchy.
>>
>> Which suggests that the problem may be that the reds you're
>> photographing are fluorescent, since those conditions cut out the UV
>> that the fluorescence exploits.
>>
>> --
>> Chris Malcolm
>
>Exactly. As you told him in the other thread, yes? And shouldn't it
>be "irredescent"... :o) sorry.
>
>I was always under the impression that the blown reds issue was indeed
>caused by the non-visible high levels of near infrared (same problem
>at the other end, with near UV) and also the chroma subsampling as
>mentioned above.
>
>Different cameras use different filtering, sensors and processing so
>it will vary, and it may eb that the poster has just had bad luck with
>his subjects - *but who could tell if he won't post examples*???? I'd
>like to see the exif on any examples, to take a long hard look at the
>camera settings..
>
>If you have a camera with an issue, then the advice to use a pale
>green filter (or an IR-cut filter, maybe?) was correct, as was
>shooting raw.

Never in my life have I read such lame misinformation and completely wrong
advice.

But then that's what anyone can expect from any of these role-playing
trolls who have never touched a real camera.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: photogenic sites, Oregon
Next: Hydroponic Pepper Photo