How can a lens possibly affect the colour balance?
Off the top of my head:
Glass (and coatings on glass) don't necessarily present the same transmissivity and / or reflectivity across the whole spectrum.
A simple one-element lens will bend light of different frequencies through different angles so that if you focus (say) the green light, from some object, the red and the blue light will be out of focus. How much out of focus depends on the composition of the glass, and in a lens with several elements it's possible to match the differences so that the overall effect is minimised.
Overall, the better the quality of the glass used, and the more elements there are in the lens, the less the colours will be "smeared out".
Better quality glass and more elements both add to the cost of the lens.
It also helps if the focal length of the lens isn't alterable by the user.
i don`t know the how`s but some of my lenses produce much more intense colours than others.
I can only think that this must be due to certain lenses letting less light through, so that the image ends up slightly under exposed. That all depends on how you use the camera though. If you always shoot in RAW, such small differences become largely irrelevant, because any tweaks you require are carried out during the processing.
I still doubt if the lenses themselves will alter the colour, although there are subtle tonal variations between different manufacturers. Nikon RAW files have to be corrected for a slight yellow/green bias, whereas the same shot from a Canon will show a subtle blue/indigo bias. It's easily corrected but it shouldn't really be like that.
I can only think that this must be due to certain lenses letting less light through, so that the image ends up slightly under exposed. That all depends on how you use the camera though. If you always shoot in RAW, such small differences become largely irrelevant, because any tweaks you require are carried out during the processing.
I still doubt if the lenses themselves will alter the colour, although there are subtle tonal variations between different manufacturers. Nikon RAW files have to be corrected for a slight yellow/green bias, whereas the same shot from a Canon will show a subtle blue/indigo bias. It's easily corrected but it shouldn't really be like that.
It's definitely possible for 2 seemingly equivalent lenses (aperture range, focal length etc etc) to give different colour results on the same camera using the same settings.
I still doubt if the lenses themselves will alter the colour, although there are subtle tonal variations between different manufacturers. Nikon RAW files have to be corrected for a slight yellow/green bias, whereas the same shot from a Canon will show a subtle blue/indigo bias. It's easily corrected but it shouldn't really be like that.
Interesting you should say that, because with a studio tutorial I did a few weeks back, the pictures were quite rich in the reds. It wasn't strong enough to be a cast, but it certainly gave the pictures a warm look compared with what other students were getting. This was with flash lighting and the colour temperature set quite high (about 7000K if memory serves - must check the exif) in order to achieve that effect, but it did seem more effective for my 7D than for the Nikon guys.
I can only think that this must be due to certain lenses letting less light through, so that the image ends up slightly under exposed. That all depends on how you use the camera though. If you always shoot in RAW, such small differences become largely irrelevant, because any tweaks you require are carried out during the processing.
I still doubt if the lenses themselves will alter the colour, although there are subtle tonal variations between different manufacturers. Nikon RAW files have to be corrected for a slight yellow/green bias, whereas the same shot from a Canon will show a subtle blue/indigo bias. It's easily corrected but it shouldn't really be like that.
no, they aren`t badly exposed, they`re actually more intense and vibrant and the difference is far from subtle.
I can only think that this must be due to certain lenses letting less light through, so that the image ends up slightly under exposed. That all depends on how you use the camera though. If you always shoot in RAW, such small differences become largely irrelevant, because any tweaks you require are carried out during the processing.
I still doubt if the lenses themselves will alter the colour, although there are subtle tonal variations between different manufacturers. Nikon RAW files have to be corrected for a slight yellow/green bias, whereas the same shot from a Canon will show a subtle blue/indigo bias. It's easily corrected but it shouldn't really be like that.
It is, I agree, initially counter intuitive to think that lenses can affect colour but they really can, for reasons such as already given. In the same way that different lenses vary wildly in terms of sharpness, bokeh etc, so they do with how they reproduce certain colours.
Interesting you should say that, because with a studio tutorial I did a few weeks back, the pictures were quite rich in the reds. It wasn't strong enough to be a cast, but it certainly gave the pictures a warm look compared with what other students were getting. This was with flash lighting and the colour temperature set quite high (about 7000K if memory serves - must check the exif) in order to achieve that effect, but it did seem more effective for my 7D than for the Nikon guys.
This colour cast thing, from lens and cameras is why I use one of these colorchecker passport
and produce a DNG profile to use with Lightroom whenever colour accuracy is important.
This colour cast thing, from lens and cameras is why I use one of these colorchecker passport
and produce a DNG profile to use with Lightroom whenever colour accuracy is important.
That's a very long and rambling load of gobbledegook that strings a lot of words together without actually saying anything meaningful at all. Nikon DSLRs have as in-built white balance calibrator that costs you nothing. I'm sure Canons do too.
That's a very long and rambling load of gobbledegook that strings a lot of words together without actually saying anything meaningful at all. Nikon DSLRs have as in-built white balance calibrator that costs you nothing. I'm sure Canons do too.
In which case your not getting the point of colour accuracy.
It's not simply a matter of getting white/grey balance correct, it's also about getting the relative colour hues/tones.
But if you wish to ignore the working practices of professionals who make their money from ensuring colour accurate reproduction then go ahead. Photography covers a wide range of interests but if anyone is serious about accurate colour then this (or similar) is the way it's done.
With £500, I wouldn't be looking to buy new. I'd go second hand all the way. with that money you could pick yourself up a Nikon D90 or if you wanted newer, a D7000 with a 50mm f/1.8 lens.
You should always look to put your money into lenses. Camera bodies come and go but lenses are for life. With a 50mm f/1.8, you get all the joy of a 'pro' lens for shirt button money. It'll transform the way you take pictures and it'll be leaps and bounds better than any kit lens you get with a new camera.
Simple explanation! It was like gatecrashing onto a forum for Aspergers sufferers.
You have to question the validity of the argument, when the "before" picture was clearly better than the processed "after version".
I thought this comment summed it up quite nicely, even if the grammar and punctuation is somewhat lacking:
"I find this obsessing over exact color to be a bit odd. I will say i find alot of the adobe standard profiles un appealing they make peoples skin pinkish. But color does not need to be this exact a science. we never worried about this in the film days. You could compare four different film stocks and theyd all have widely different colors . perfection wasnt possible and we didnt seek it. We just wanted pleasing color. I actually like the uncalibrated color of the portrait image better than the calibrated"
I thought this exchange was unintentionally funny:
"One picture looks slightly lighter than the other…is that it?"
"No. If that is all you are seeing, then your monitor must be way off in calibration. I see more than just that on the uncalibrated display I am viewing it on.
The most obvious changes are in the tone and warmth of some of the colors. But it isn't all the colors changing, so it isn't like someone added a warmth filter and called it a day. Each color is receiving its own treatment of adjustments. For example, oranges and browns may see the biggest change while blues may see no changes".
The lesson I learnt was that true colour rendition is largely a pointless exercise, as no two people will ever see the same scene in an identical way. I simply aim to do whatever makes each photo the most pleasing to my uncalibrated eyeballs. It's part of what makes each photographer's output unique.
Simple explanation! It was like gatecrashing onto a forum for Aspergers sufferers.
You have to question the validity of the argument, when the "before" picture was clearly better than the processed "after version".
I thought this comment summed it up quite nicely, even if the grammar and punctuation is somewhat lacking:
"I find this obsessing over exact color to be a bit odd. I will say i find alot of the adobe standard profiles un appealing they make peoples skin pinkish. But color does not need to be this exact a science. we never worried about this in the film days. You could compare four different film stocks and theyd all have widely different colors . perfection wasnt possible and we didnt seek it. We just wanted pleasing color. I actually like the uncalibrated color of the portrait image better than the calibrated"
I thought this exchange was unintentionally funny:
"One picture looks slightly lighter than the other…is that it?"
"No. If that is all you are seeing, then your monitor must be way off in calibration. I see more than just that on the uncalibrated display I am viewing it on.
The most obvious changes are in the tone and warmth of some of the colors. But it isn't all the colors changing, so it isn't like someone added a warmth filter and called it a day. Each color is receiving its own treatment of adjustments. For example, oranges and browns may see the biggest change while blues may see no changes".
The lesson I learnt was that true colour rendition is largely a pointless exercise, as no two people will ever see the same scene in an identical way. I simply aim to do whatever makes each photo the most pleasing to my uncalibrated eyeballs. It's part of what makes each photographer's output unique.
It's not a pointless exercise. If you print your work, for example. it's rather a waste of time processing an image on screen if it then looks completely different on paper.
Comments
Off the top of my head:
Glass (and coatings on glass) don't necessarily present the same transmissivity and / or reflectivity across the whole spectrum.
A simple one-element lens will bend light of different frequencies through different angles so that if you focus (say) the green light, from some object, the red and the blue light will be out of focus. How much out of focus depends on the composition of the glass, and in a lens with several elements it's possible to match the differences so that the overall effect is minimised.
Overall, the better the quality of the glass used, and the more elements there are in the lens, the less the colours will be "smeared out".
Better quality glass and more elements both add to the cost of the lens.
It also helps if the focal length of the lens isn't alterable by the user.
i don`t know the how`s but some of my lenses produce much more intense colours than others.
I still doubt if the lenses themselves will alter the colour, although there are subtle tonal variations between different manufacturers. Nikon RAW files have to be corrected for a slight yellow/green bias, whereas the same shot from a Canon will show a subtle blue/indigo bias. It's easily corrected but it shouldn't really be like that.
It's definitely possible for 2 seemingly equivalent lenses (aperture range, focal length etc etc) to give different colour results on the same camera using the same settings.
It is, I agree, initially counter intuitive to think that lenses can affect colour but they really can, for reasons such as already given. In the same way that different lenses vary wildly in terms of sharpness, bokeh etc, so they do with how they reproduce certain colours.
This colour cast thing, from lens and cameras is why I use one of these
colorchecker passport
and produce a DNG profile to use with Lightroom whenever colour accuracy is important.
In which case your not getting the point of colour accuracy.
It's not simply a matter of getting white/grey balance correct, it's also about getting the relative colour hues/tones.
But if you wish to ignore the working practices of professionals who make their money from ensuring colour accurate reproduction then go ahead. Photography covers a wide range of interests but if anyone is serious about accurate colour then this (or similar) is the way it's done.
for a simple explanation see
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6497352654/get-more-accurate-color-with-camera-calibration-
With £500, I wouldn't be looking to buy new. I'd go second hand all the way. with that money you could pick yourself up a Nikon D90 or if you wanted newer, a D7000 with a 50mm f/1.8 lens.
You should always look to put your money into lenses. Camera bodies come and go but lenses are for life. With a 50mm f/1.8, you get all the joy of a 'pro' lens for shirt button money. It'll transform the way you take pictures and it'll be leaps and bounds better than any kit lens you get with a new camera.
You have to question the validity of the argument, when the "before" picture was clearly better than the processed "after version".
I thought this comment summed it up quite nicely, even if the grammar and punctuation is somewhat lacking:
"I find this obsessing over exact color to be a bit odd. I will say i find alot of the adobe standard profiles un appealing they make peoples skin pinkish. But color does not need to be this exact a science. we never worried about this in the film days. You could compare four different film stocks and theyd all have widely different colors . perfection wasnt possible and we didnt seek it. We just wanted pleasing color. I actually like the uncalibrated color of the portrait image better than the calibrated"
I thought this exchange was unintentionally funny:
"One picture looks slightly lighter than the other…is that it?"
"No. If that is all you are seeing, then your monitor must be way off in calibration. I see more than just that on the uncalibrated display I am viewing it on.
The most obvious changes are in the tone and warmth of some of the colors. But it isn't all the colors changing, so it isn't like someone added a warmth filter and called it a day. Each color is receiving its own treatment of adjustments. For example, oranges and browns may see the biggest change while blues may see no changes".
The lesson I learnt was that true colour rendition is largely a pointless exercise, as no two people will ever see the same scene in an identical way. I simply aim to do whatever makes each photo the most pleasing to my uncalibrated eyeballs. It's part of what makes each photographer's output unique.
It's not a pointless exercise. If you print your work, for example. it's rather a waste of time processing an image on screen if it then looks completely different on paper.