Re: Of colorful scepticism & Digital cameras
Re: Of colorful scepticism & Digital cameras
- Subject: Re: Of colorful scepticism & Digital cameras
- From: Stefan Fiedler <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:00:13 +0200
>
Hi All
>
On the subject of shooting on film & then scanning that film. Then
>
expecting to get a consistent result, it won't happen!
>
There are way to many variables, film batch, processing, color temp of light
>
& color of the lens. So its not a fair comparison.
>
When you shoot on digital, with either a scanning or single capture camera
>
you can include a grey card in each different lighting situation if on a
>
single capture camera, with a scanning back you take a reading from a grey
>
scale & then balance for what ever type of lighting.
>
Now with the single capture shots you have a reference point for the
>
lighting of each set up, you can balance the images in batches, as per
>
lighting situation. Then add the profile to the images after that, to allow
>
for how the chip sees things. With the scanning back once have balanced for
>
the lighting & then do the final capture the software will embed a profile
>
for that back.
>
This should really be the photographers responsibility to deliver a profiled
>
image to the client. I do.
>
So this way my clients & there printers no what to expect. Then hopefully
>
this makes us all look good.
>
>
Gadge
My impression is that the way most films "see" colors resembles the human
perception more than how CCDs see color. Part of the reason may be that
CCDs see more into the infrared spectrum - which is cut off to a certain
extent by filters - than film. The metameric properties of various
colorants seem to be another problem. I wonder what it would take to
create CCDs that match the eye-curve and also why film does a better job?
IBM has an interesting R&D project where they apply 16(!) spectral filters
to a monochrome scannback camera in order to match the human visual
perception, e.g. for fine art reproduction.
Stefan