Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dyers" data-source="post: 324834" data-attributes="member: 27282">I'm with the OP. Diagnosing a problem is sometimes more challenging than  finding a fix. We've been chasing our tails about this for the better  part of 2 years. When we read about white balance, and implemented it's  use, there was a marked improvement in images taken under that specific  light source (in this case, daylight CFL) when a wide variety of colors  are present, but not when the colors present are near each other on the  color wheel. We thought the white balance would solve the issues with  the CFLs. Your explanations help better understand why it isn't the  total solution. At first, our attempts to solve the issue were fairly  logical, but as time passed without notable over-all improvement, and as  logical solutions either escaped us, or failed, the attempts became  more desperate. Monitor calibration sounds right, like a correct part of the solution,  but it left me wondering how one knows if progress has been made, or if  the issue has just been exacerbated. We can spend countless hours trying  to edit with the calibration results from one application, then  calibrate using a different software only to find that the images we  thought we were making look more true still look different. There are  lots of pieces of software, and cool gadgets that each promise an  exclusive solution to calibration, but I wonder if certainty can be  found in using them; I'm beginning to wonder if monitor calibration  isn't a little like the emperor's new clothes?So, we've been given two likely means to solve our color issue. Using  flash alone isn't likely to be helpful as the still life work we're  doing with these yarns is rather close, and there isn't a white ceiling  to bounce the flash. Years ago, I used what were marketed as "Grow-Lux"  incandescent bulbs, but those colored the images towards blue. As  someone suggested above, that's easy enough to correct in photo editing  software (we currently use Photoshop CS3), and realize that will always  be a part of the total solution. I have not tried other alternatives  recently, and since the crack-down on incandescents, I don't even know  what's still available. Light source is probably the single biggest  readily affordable change we can make. What bulbs do you all use?The second is raw. I know that BrWhatsit's D40 will shoot raw, that it's  a lossless format, and not much else. That's an avenue I want to  actively explore now, too. What might the work-flow of processing a raw  image look like? Is Photoshop even the right software? Relatedly, if we  shoot a bunch of images, offload them in jpg format which is lossy,  edit, then save them as pngs, are those pngs still considered lossless?Wayne; the article on color balance referenced in your post is very  thorough, and is going to be a lot of help. One sitting with it was  enough only to get a brief overview. It's not over my head, but it uses a  language with which I'm not intimately familiar, so it takes longer to  digest what I'm reading. The writer, Wayne Fulton (is that you?) talks  about clicking on something white in the image that's in the same light  as the subject (the white t-shirt vs. the white water in the rapids),  and that's something I want to play with. A very low percentage of our  images have any white; we usually shoot on a seamless background made  from black Formica. Will it work to put something white just beside the  subject that can be cropped out after color editing? Is a postage stamp  sized white object big enough? Is a piece of printer photo paper worth  trying, or would something spherical like a golf or ping-pong ball make  better sense?I've owned 5 cameras; an Argus C3 that had previously been my dad's, a  mid-seventies Focal (K-Mart brand) 35mm SLR, an N90s, the only camera I  will ever love, and two junky digital cameras I bought just for snap  shots. The flash for his D40 is in need of repair, and the auto-focus  isn't functioning (as I recall, the problem might be with the af lens,  and not the body). I've been looking at other cameras, and settled on  purchasing a D5300. I think this is something I need to do to  1. spend less time behind the camera, and 2. to spend less time in a  photo editor. Your comments make me think the lighting, and raw issues  are higher priorities that could use careful examination whatever camera  we have; they're certainly more affordable. Are there any inherent  problems with the D40 that suggest another camera is advisable sooner  than later from your perspective?</blockquote>

Verification