Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 527935" data-attributes="member: 12496">I can't help you, it simply is not that way.But it is because the camera has no clue what color the light is. The camera also has no clue what color the subject is, or even what the subject is.&nbsp; A very dumb computer, and it only presents a result,&nbsp; but no clue what it is, or what the result ought to be.&nbsp;&nbsp; I suppose the cameras could eventually be designed to build in a color meter, but they don't.&nbsp; A Sekonic color meter costs $1700, more than many cameras.Same problem since Day One.&nbsp; When we shot color negative film, the processing lab had&nbsp; sophisticated equipment and a skilled operator who took care of most color and exposure corrections for us. Most of us didn't even realize it could be an issue.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; We did have blue flash bulbs to sort of match incandescent light, but many of us did not bother to use them, because the lab would usually take care of it for us, to help it some.&nbsp; &nbsp;But with digital, there is no lab or operator, and that becomes our job to do.&nbsp; A large group of novices do imagine their little camera ought to always get it right, but they don't have experience yet to realize that simply ain't gonna happen.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> &nbsp;&nbsp; But humans do have the big advantage of having a human brain (and some are willing to use it).&nbsp; A camera or meter or computer cannot tell a black cat in a coal mine from a white polar bear on the snow. Both will come out middle gray. But humans instantly can tell and know. We usually know what it ought to look like. Or at least, how we want it to look. So we have to help the dumb camera computer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 527935, member: 12496"] I can't help you, it simply is not that way. But it is because the camera has no clue what color the light is. The camera also has no clue what color the subject is, or even what the subject is. A very dumb computer, and it only presents a result, but no clue what it is, or what the result ought to be. I suppose the cameras could eventually be designed to build in a color meter, but they don't. A Sekonic color meter costs $1700, more than many cameras. Same problem since Day One. When we shot color negative film, the processing lab had sophisticated equipment and a skilled operator who took care of most color and exposure corrections for us. Most of us didn't even realize it could be an issue. :) We did have blue flash bulbs to sort of match incandescent light, but many of us did not bother to use them, because the lab would usually take care of it for us, to help it some. But with digital, there is no lab or operator, and that becomes our job to do. A large group of novices do imagine their little camera ought to always get it right, but they don't have experience yet to realize that simply ain't gonna happen. :) But humans do have the big advantage of having a human brain (and some are willing to use it). A camera or meter or computer cannot tell a black cat in a coal mine from a white polar bear on the snow. Both will come out middle gray. But humans instantly can tell and know. We usually know what it ought to look like. Or at least, how we want it to look. So we have to help the dumb camera computer. [/QUOTE]

Verification