Red rose blues ....

On Aug 29, 4:49 am, "Sosumi" wrote:
"Steve B" wrote in message

...





"Sosumi" wrote in message
. ..
Pretty much every camera I tried, except for film, is not capable of
reproducing the real color of a dark red rose. When you look at the rose
and at the picture, they´re always much too bright and the velvet details
seem to have been lost completely, leaving a boring rose like any other.
I found plenty on the internet, but they all look more or less the same!
Has anyone ever succeeded in producing this kind of rose with natural
colors or is it really impossible?

Use RAW and underexpose a bit to avoid clipping. Sharpen quite a bit,
mainly mid-tones if you can work out how to do that in your editor. Is
this good enough?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=24178908

I think I am very close. The rose is not perfect and the background un
important but this is what I wanted to see:

http://photos-of-portugal.com/Realrose.jpg

First off, you have wine there and you're not sharing. Tsk. Tsk. Be
polite and send us all some.

Second off, the problem you have isn't the problem you think you have.

Your original comparison is a film print to a digital photo on a
screen. Your biggest loss is the fact that screens don't perform like
paper. You get much better color and detail on paper.

My suggestion is that you find a very, very good lab and have your
images printed and see how they look. The details might astonish
you. Then you can compare your film print to your digital print.

Sosumi wrote:
"Matt Ion" wrote in message
news:sxbBi.102594$fJ5.37022@pd7urf1no...
Sosumi wrote:
"Steve B" wrote in message
...
"Sosumi" wrote in message
...
Pretty much every camera I tried, except for film, is not capable of
reproducing the real color of a dark red rose. When you look at the
rose and at the picture, they´re always much too bright and the velvet
details seem to have been lost completely, leaving a boring rose like
any other.
I found plenty on the internet, but they all look more or less the
same!
Has anyone ever succeeded in producing this kind of rose with natural
colors or is it really impossible?

Use RAW and underexpose a bit to avoid clipping. Sharpen quite a bit,
mainly mid-tones if you can work out how to do that in your editor. Is
this good enough?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=24178908
I think I am very close. The rose is not perfect and the background un
important but this is what I wanted to see:

http://photos-of-portugal.com/Realrose.jpg
Hmmm, got some really good detail in the rose there, it actually looks
"soft to the touch"... but your white balance looks way off.

Actyually it isn´t that much, but it was the only way to get rid of the
horrible magenta. Besides in PS you can easily select all except the rose
and change the color or wb.
Been at it for almost two weeks to get this. Try google red rose picture and
see what they got.
I still don´t understand why it´s seems so difficult for digi cams to catch
it. My Canon camcorder makes the same mistake ;-))
This was shot with a brand new Nikon D40; I really love it!

I suspect the biggest problem with digitals in general is that the
detail is lost to their internal JPEG compression, which of course is
only 8-bit color depth at best. Shooting in RAW (NEF in your case)
certainly helps things.

Sosumi wrote:
"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Sosumi" wrote in message
...
Pretty much every camera I tried, except for film, is not capable
of
reproducing the real color of a dark red rose. When you look at
the
rose and at the picture, they´re always much too bright and the
velvet details seem to have been lost completely, leaving a boring
rose like any other. I found plenty on the internet, but they all
look more or less the same! Has anyone ever succeeded in producing
this kind of rose with natural colors or is it really impossible?


Use RAW and underexpose a bit to avoid clipping. Sharpen quite a
bit, mainly mid-tones if you can work out how to do that in your
editor. Is this good enough?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=24178908

I think I am very close. The rose is not perfect and the background
un
important but this is what I wanted to see:

http://photos-of-portugal.com/Realrose.jpg

From a couple years ago, raw, diddled some. Looks as if there is a bit
of what you want to see in here (as well as some of what no one wants
to see [where's that polarizer when you really need it?]):
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/24/46...684a34d7_o.jpg

--
Frank ess

I think I am very close. The rose is not perfect and the background un
important but this is what I wanted to see:

http://photos-of-portugal.com/Realrose.jpg

First off, you have wine there and you're not sharing. Tsk. Tsk. Be
polite and send us all some.

Second off, the problem you have isn't the problem you think you have.

Your original comparison is a film print to a digital photo on a
screen. Your biggest loss is the fact that screens don't perform like
paper. You get much better color and detail on paper.

My suggestion is that you find a very, very good lab and have your
images printed and see how they look. The details might astonish
you. Then you can compare your film print to your digital print.


Come and have some wine, no problem. For 1 euro you already have a
reasonable bottle ;-))

You´re mistaking badly: I compare the rose with the life one. In different
lighting conditions. That´s how I came up with fluorescent light.

On Aug 28, 1:22 pm, "Sosumi" wrote:
Pretty much every camera I tried, except for film, is not capable of
reproducing the real color of a dark red rose. When you look at the rose and
at the picture, they´re always much too bright and the velvet details seem
to have been lost completely, leaving a boring rose like any other.
I found plenty on the internet, but they all look more or less the same!
Has anyone ever succeeded in producing this kind of rose with natural colors
or is it really impossible?

Check the RGB histogram of your pictures. In my experience, many
cameras make red flowers look flat because the red channel gets
clipped. To fix that you'd have to under-expose the shot.

-Gniewko

"Sosumi" wrote in message
...

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Sosumi" wrote in message
...
Pretty much every camera I tried, except for film, is not capable of
reproducing the real color of a dark red rose. When you look at the rose
and at the picture, they´re always much too bright and the velvet
details seem to have been lost completely, leaving a boring rose like
any other.
I found plenty on the internet, but they all look more or less the same!
Has anyone ever succeeded in producing this kind of rose with natural
colors or is it really impossible?


Use RAW and underexpose a bit to avoid clipping. Sharpen quite a bit,
mainly mid-tones if you can work out how to do that in your editor. Is
this good enough?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=24178908


Sorry, this is exactly what I mean. Although much better then most, it
still is too bright.


Sorry, your wrong. This was a rose of mine and I can tell you that the
colour and brightness was correct as I could compare the real thing with the
PC image afterwards. The brightness depends on the quantity of light shining
on the rose at the time of the shot and roses vary anyway, mine wasn't a
dark rose, it was just a deep red.

What I find lacking in nearly all red rose shots is sharpness and a true red
throughout the image, usually due to clipping in the brighter areas changing
the hue.

"Sosumi" wrote in message
...
Pretty much every camera I tried, except for film, is not capable of
reproducing the real color of a dark red rose. When you look at the rose
and at the picture, they´re always much too bright and the velvet details
seem to have been lost completely, leaving a boring rose like any other.
I found plenty on the internet, but they all look more or less the same!
Has anyone ever succeeded in producing this kind of rose with natural
colors or is it really impossible?

Just to be certain:
Yes, I shoot everything in RAW and here is a picture of what I finally made.
Background is not important. White balance IS way off. Just about the rose.

http://photos-of-portugal.com/Realrose.jpg

Steve B wrote:

"Sosumi" wrote in message
...

Pretty much every camera I tried, except for film, is not capable of
reproducing the real color of a dark red rose. When you look at the rose
and at the picture, they´re always much too bright and the velvet details
seem to have been lost completely, leaving a boring rose like any other.
I found plenty on the internet, but they all look more or less the same!
Has anyone ever succeeded in producing this kind of rose with natural
colors or is it really impossible?

Use RAW and underexpose a bit to avoid clipping. Sharpen quite a bit,
mainly mid-tones if you can work out how to do that in your editor. Is this
good enough?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=24178908

That's nice. Interestingly, when I load it in PS & crop to the rose
only, adjusting saturation to max has almost no effect on the image or
histogram!

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

Don't label the users inability to properly use a camera and/or editing
software for a general failure of the camera. Now you want trouble with red,
try printing it. Most consumer inkjet printers don't do worth a **** with
lots of red. Red is a hard color for the CMY mix to create, in fact it does
a lousy job.

Somebody!