Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
Out of Production DSLRs
D40/D40x
Faithful Color Reproduction
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 325097" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>Fluorescent is tricky, not a full spectrum, which means some colors are simply missing. This makes illuminating those subject colors be a real problem. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> There is a CRI (Color Rendering Index) number on some fluorescent bulb packages, good ones are around CRI 90-92, which means the color spectrum is 90% as good as incandescent (many fluorescent are much worse). So then, most colors are OK, but there can be exceptions. The white card can match colors, but it cannot fill in missing colors. So if fluorescent, specifically look for high CRI lamps. If you have fluorescent bulbs where your wife chooses her clothing colors, she absolutely wants high CRI bulbs there. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>But incandescent is better color, and no problem, but there are cool, warm, daylight type of bulbs, they should all match (wattage and age/hours too). And it is just me, but my notion is that the daylight type using phosphorus coatings are also not as fully complete spectrum. Nothing wrong with regular incandescent, if using the white card to match them.</p><p></p><p>Color can always be a problem. And exposure can shift colors a bit. Yellow and red are bright, esp after shifted to daylight or flash WB, and it is not uncommon than one of the three channels is clipping somewhat. This can change things, the color we see if clipped. Just saying, pay attention to the THREE CHANNEL RGB histogram in the camera (NOT the one single gray histogram) as you setup your exposure, and don't clip any channel on the right. Not saying it should be intentional, but a slight underexposure seems no big deal in Raw, we just boost it back up as desired. We can do that to all in one click too. But we can never recover clipped data.</p><p></p><p>EDIT: Raw files have no WB in them, so this shift is not yet done, but will be done later. But the camera LCD and histogram are showing a JPG which is embedded in the NEF file, which has the camera WB settings in it, so it is showing that final WB. So, the camera WB setting, which does not affect the Raw file, but should be approximately correct value anyway, for judging exposure on the camera histogram. And so you see a better LCD picture. And, Adobe Raw will try to use that WB setting in its AS SHOT result. You can do better than AS SHOT however, later.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Portraits of humans with incandescent lights are problematic. Not the color, but because the lights are fairly dim, and we end up with the lens wide open at 1/30 second, trying to make it work. (modern ISO helps today). But we'd like a shutter speed of say 1/100 second to stop motion of the subject squirming, and maybe we want f/11 for depth of field, esp on your yarn. Flash is greatly more practical to do that, brighter for human subjects.</p><p></p><p>But the yarn is inanimate, and any slow shutter speed, even one full second, is no big deal at all (assuming camera is fixed on a tripod). So brightest lights are unnecessary, optional. A bigger concern would be the "lighting". A light bulb is a small harsh light (dark sharp shadows), but large lights (like an umbrella, maybe 3 feet diameter) casts nearly shadowless soft light. This could be any white reflector, reflecting a big surface lighted area back to the subject (from many directions, simply because it is large, and near).</p><p></p><p>The problem with incandescents today is finding them to buy. Some CFL lamps are real problems, color wise. Amazon still has some various incandescents, and also I think 150 watt size may still be manufactured.</p><p></p><p>There are <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_16?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=photoflood%20bulbs&sprefix=photoflood+bulbs%2Caps%2C212&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aphotoflood%20bulbs" target="_blank">special photoflood incandescent bulbs</a> for photography, high watts and short life, bright and usually 3400K for special older indoor film, which was important in 1960, but really no longer important for digital WB since we can match most situations now. But if you did want high power, this is one way. (high power is hot and uncomfortable of course). </p><p></p><p>But I think a longer shutter speed is of no concern in your use.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 325097, member: 12496"] Fluorescent is tricky, not a full spectrum, which means some colors are simply missing. This makes illuminating those subject colors be a real problem. :) There is a CRI (Color Rendering Index) number on some fluorescent bulb packages, good ones are around CRI 90-92, which means the color spectrum is 90% as good as incandescent (many fluorescent are much worse). So then, most colors are OK, but there can be exceptions. The white card can match colors, but it cannot fill in missing colors. So if fluorescent, specifically look for high CRI lamps. If you have fluorescent bulbs where your wife chooses her clothing colors, she absolutely wants high CRI bulbs there. :) But incandescent is better color, and no problem, but there are cool, warm, daylight type of bulbs, they should all match (wattage and age/hours too). And it is just me, but my notion is that the daylight type using phosphorus coatings are also not as fully complete spectrum. Nothing wrong with regular incandescent, if using the white card to match them. Color can always be a problem. And exposure can shift colors a bit. Yellow and red are bright, esp after shifted to daylight or flash WB, and it is not uncommon than one of the three channels is clipping somewhat. This can change things, the color we see if clipped. Just saying, pay attention to the THREE CHANNEL RGB histogram in the camera (NOT the one single gray histogram) as you setup your exposure, and don't clip any channel on the right. Not saying it should be intentional, but a slight underexposure seems no big deal in Raw, we just boost it back up as desired. We can do that to all in one click too. But we can never recover clipped data. EDIT: Raw files have no WB in them, so this shift is not yet done, but will be done later. But the camera LCD and histogram are showing a JPG which is embedded in the NEF file, which has the camera WB settings in it, so it is showing that final WB. So, the camera WB setting, which does not affect the Raw file, but should be approximately correct value anyway, for judging exposure on the camera histogram. And so you see a better LCD picture. And, Adobe Raw will try to use that WB setting in its AS SHOT result. You can do better than AS SHOT however, later. Portraits of humans with incandescent lights are problematic. Not the color, but because the lights are fairly dim, and we end up with the lens wide open at 1/30 second, trying to make it work. (modern ISO helps today). But we'd like a shutter speed of say 1/100 second to stop motion of the subject squirming, and maybe we want f/11 for depth of field, esp on your yarn. Flash is greatly more practical to do that, brighter for human subjects. But the yarn is inanimate, and any slow shutter speed, even one full second, is no big deal at all (assuming camera is fixed on a tripod). So brightest lights are unnecessary, optional. A bigger concern would be the "lighting". A light bulb is a small harsh light (dark sharp shadows), but large lights (like an umbrella, maybe 3 feet diameter) casts nearly shadowless soft light. This could be any white reflector, reflecting a big surface lighted area back to the subject (from many directions, simply because it is large, and near). The problem with incandescents today is finding them to buy. Some CFL lamps are real problems, color wise. Amazon still has some various incandescents, and also I think 150 watt size may still be manufactured. There are [URL="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_16?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=photoflood%20bulbs&sprefix=photoflood+bulbs%2Caps%2C212&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aphotoflood%20bulbs"]special photoflood incandescent bulbs[/URL] for photography, high watts and short life, bright and usually 3400K for special older indoor film, which was important in 1960, but really no longer important for digital WB since we can match most situations now. But if you did want high power, this is one way. (high power is hot and uncomfortable of course). But I think a longer shutter speed is of no concern in your use. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
Out of Production DSLRs
D40/D40x
Faithful Color Reproduction
Top