A challenge, and how much is 'enough'.

[privatebydesign]

Also if it takes you 30 seconds to 'correct' the WB what are you doing for the other 29 seconds!

Right... Because your so amazing it only takes you 1 second.

P.S. I said color, not WB. Color correction involves more than temperature alone.

I have found heavily overcast evening light in Florida to be much bluer than your edit, if I was intending to actually do anything with the file I wouldn't change the temp much, if any, but would give it some positive tint.

If you like poor color reproduction for an artsy look; whatever floats your boat man. You could always invert the colors and apply a psychedelic glow to it too.

As for my monitor, it is calibrated and works very well when I use proof mode in PS to print.

Neat. You may find this site interesting: http://www.color-blindness.com/color-blindness-tests/

But your input is just a diversion, the WB is easily adjusted to whatever you want in any model camera with no IQ impact if you shoot RAW, ergo it doesn't change the premise of my point in the slightest.

There you go on WB again. The color including the WB was corrected in the edit. White balance alone does not correct color. Apologies' if you find the corrections offensive.

To answer your question, when is enough enough; You tell me, is 10fps enough? is 14? How about 60, or 120? Really depends on your needs. Obviously your needs aren't very high, that doesn't mean others aren't.

When I asked "when is enough enough" I was asking a broad question to see what people said, and there has been a healthy input, I wasn't specific about MP I was thinking of a more gear and output orientated question. The truth is we can get outstanding results that vastly outstrip virtually all practical output requirements with comparatively modest gear. A 1Ds MkIII can be had for around $1,000-1,500, a 300 f4L for $500-750.

Well, now you know what I said... Some people are okay with your setup, color accuracy, and quality requirements. Others have higher standards than you.

That is pretty much all argumentum ad hominem.

The only 'correct'* 'color' is done on a neutral tone and that is best done automatically via the WB tool. The only neutral tone in the image that is usable is the eye, putting the WB tool on the eye takes 1 second, any other 'adjustments' to the WB, color and tint, are entirely subjective. You were not here, you did not see the light I saw, your 'correction' is your subjective assessment of what you think it should look like on your monitor.

The rest of your drivel is just that, ad hominem drivel.

* 'correct' is used as meaning neutral. But neutral in this context is entirely fallacious, if the light is blue, or orange or green, the WB tool is useless as an accurate representation of the scene in front of you.

P.S. Thanks for the colorblindness tests, it seems I am good to make color assessments of my own images.

 

[d]

If you like poor color reproduction for an artsy look; whatever floats your boat man. You could always invert the colors and apply a psychedelic glow to it too.

...
The rest of your drivel is just that, ad hominem drivel.

+1

Some regard their "knowledge" more highly than they ought.

d.

 

[scyrene]

I took 30 seconds to correct your color. As for "when is enough enough"; You may want to invest in a new monitor if the color appeared to be correct on yours.

(Image attachment specified)

Andy,

Colour is entirely subjective and you weren't there, you can't possibly know what was "correct". Also if it takes you 30 seconds to 'correct' the WB what are you doing for the other 29 seconds! I have found heavily overcast evening light in Florida to be much bluer than your edit, if I was intending to actually do anything with the file I wouldn't change the temp much, if any, but would give it some positive tint.

As for my monitor, it is calibrated and works very well when I use proof mode in PS to print.

But your input is just a diversion, the WB is easily adjusted to whatever you want in any model camera with no IQ impact if you shoot RAW, ergo it doesn't change the premise of my point in the slightest.

When I asked "when is enough enough" I was asking a broad question to see what people said, and there has been a healthy input, I wasn't specific about MP I was thinking of a more gear and output orientated question. The truth is we can get outstanding results that vastly outstrip virtually all practical output requirements with comparatively modest gear. A 1Ds MkIII can be had for around $1,000-1,500, a 300 f4L for $500-750.

Precisely - we all see colour differently. Each of my eyes has a different 'white balance'. For me, the original was subdued (blue/green), but this 'corrected' version is too red. But that's me, my monitor, my eyes. So long as a photographer is satisfied, then the image is correct. Some things cannot be objectively arbitrated.

 

[scyrene]

Also if it takes you 30 seconds to 'correct' the WB what are you doing for the other 29 seconds!

Right... Because your so amazing it only takes you 1 second.

P.S. I said color, not WB. Color correction involves more than temperature alone.

I have found heavily overcast evening light in Florida to be much bluer than your edit, if I was intending to actually do anything with the file I wouldn't change the temp much, if any, but would give it some positive tint.

If you like poor color reproduction for an artsy look; whatever floats your boat man. You could always invert the colors and apply a psychedelic glow to it too.

As for my monitor, it is calibrated and works very well when I use proof mode in PS to print.

Neat. You may find this site interesting: http://www.color-blindness.com/color-blindness-tests/

But your input is just a diversion, the WB is easily adjusted to whatever you want in any model camera with no IQ impact if you shoot RAW, ergo it doesn't change the premise of my point in the slightest.

There you go on WB again. The color including the WB was corrected in the edit. White balance alone does not correct color. Apologies' if you find the corrections offensive.

To answer your question, when is enough enough; You tell me, is 10fps enough? is 14? How about 60, or 120? Really depends on your needs. Obviously your needs aren't very high, that doesn't mean others aren't.

When I asked "when is enough enough" I was asking a broad question to see what people said, and there has been a healthy input, I wasn't specific about MP I was thinking of a more gear and output orientated question. The truth is we can get outstanding results that vastly outstrip virtually all practical output requirements with comparatively modest gear. A 1Ds MkIII can be had for around $1,000-1,500, a 300 f4L for $500-750.

Well, now you know what I said... Some people are okay with your setup, color accuracy, and quality requirements. Others have higher standards than you.

Ooh, way to go man. You've been here five minutes and are already telling people they're wrong and assuming a superior attitude. Maybe be a bit more humble and understanding? Especially when you're talking out of your arse.

 

[JClark]

Also if it takes you 30 seconds to 'correct' the WB what are you doing for the other 29 seconds!

Right... Because your so amazing it only takes you 1 second.

P.S. I said color, not WB. Color correction involves more than temperature alone.

I have found heavily overcast evening light in Florida to be much bluer than your edit, if I was intending to actually do anything with the file I wouldn't change the temp much, if any, but would give it some positive tint.

If you like poor color reproduction for an artsy look; whatever floats your boat man. You could always invert the colors and apply a psychedelic glow to it too.

As for my monitor, it is calibrated and works very well when I use proof mode in PS to print.

Neat. You may find this site interesting: http://www.color-blindness.com/color-blindness-tests/

But your input is just a diversion, the WB is easily adjusted to whatever you want in any model camera with no IQ impact if you shoot RAW, ergo it doesn't change the premise of my point in the slightest.

There you go on WB again. The color including the WB was corrected in the edit. White balance alone does not correct color. Apologies' if you find the corrections offensive.

To answer your question, when is enough enough; You tell me, is 10fps enough? is 14? How about 60, or 120? Really depends on your needs. Obviously your needs aren't very high, that doesn't mean others aren't.

When I asked "when is enough enough" I was asking a broad question to see what people said, and there has been a healthy input, I wasn't specific about MP I was thinking of a more gear and output orientated question. The truth is we can get outstanding results that vastly outstrip virtually all practical output requirements with comparatively modest gear. A 1Ds MkIII can be had for around $1,000-1,500, a 300 f4L for $500-750.

Well, now you know what I said... Some people are okay with your setup, color accuracy, and quality requirements. Others have higher standards than you.

I don't get the way overly aggressive response, Andy? Reasonable people can disagree over whether PBD's original crop would be suitable for print/display/sale, but this was sort of out of left field.

 

[Sporgon]

If you like poor color reproduction for an artsy look; whatever floats your boat man. You could always invert the colors and apply a psychedelic glow to it too.

...
The rest of your drivel is just that, ad hominem drivel.

+1

Some regard their "knowledge" more highly than they ought.

d.

And their opinion too. Posts from people like "Andy" are both amusing and depressing at the same time. His "corrected" image has a brown / orange cast that whilst undoubtably may appeal to some, to me it just makes the image look too warm and quite ordinary. It's also had the levels compressed in an attempt to brighten the overall image, the sort of result you can get from applying "auto correct" in pp programs. The blue / green of private's original makes the picture IMO, and I'm sure if private had been producing that as a final image he'd had given it a tiny bit more punch but left the colour alone.

 

[wsmith96]

Hi cellomaster.
I did the buying a 5D thing, it's likely the first thing you will do after that is the buying a 24-105 thing to have a standard lens for it, this will likely be slightly dearer than the 5D! ;D I tried to resist but a nifty fifty felt rather limiting for me. :
What I will say is the 5D is still IMHO a very capable camera despite the rumours of its 3rd successor being near to launch.

Cheers, Graham.

I am only incredibly jealous of you guys who have money to buy and discuss these cameras. I try to make do with what I have. Though my picture quality sucks and no one will probably buy my work, I decided that it's about what I enjoy doing with what I have. Maybe I'll grab myself a 5D sometime.

+1. This is the exact path I took as well. The 5d has great iq. I ended up trading up to the 6d because I like live view focusing for macro and I occasionally shoot some video. I miss the feel of the 5d, but I've had a good experience with my 6d with exception for 1 thing. Occasionally after I change a lens the auto focus won't engage. I have to turn the camera off and on again to bring the lens to life. I've got the camera ready to ship to canon for them to investigate.

 

[wsmith96]

Well, now you know what I said... Some people are okay with your setup, color accuracy, and quality requirements. Others have higher standards than you.

Wow..this is kind of harsh given the subject and debate of this thread. Since we are handing out URL's, here's one for you: http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2015/09/a-gentlemans-guide-to-not-being-an-asshole/

 

[zim]

For me, the original was subdued (blue/green), but this 'corrected' version is too red.

+ 1 me too

The only obnoxious thing I find is the overbearing self opinionated arrogant opine of the poster, may as well throw in rude while I'm at it.

 

[Andyx01]

That is pretty much all argumentum ad hominem.

Well that was an offensive thing to say. I found it rather factual and to the point myself.

The only 'correct'* 'color' is done on a neutral tone and that is best done automatically via the WB tool.

So now there is a 'correct' color. And it is 'Neutral tone", "Best done automatically via WB tool."

This is all bad information and false. Please don't spread bad information.

The only neutral tone in the image that is usable is the eye,

You cannot be serious?

putting the WB tool on the eye takes 1 second,

It does? Sounds subjective.

any other 'adjustments' to the WB, color and tint, are entirely subjective.

Not true. WB is a crude method. Read up on Color Rite Passport.

You were not here, you did not see the light I saw, your 'correction' is your subjective assessment of what you think it should look like on your monitor.

Correct

The rest of your drivel is just that, ad hominem drivel.

Yeah I'm just puking garbage. I'm a bad person. That is slow to edit by your standards, posting bad criticism. You are right in every way. Enough is enough, what you have is all anyone needs. Thanks for clearing everything up.

P.S. Thanks for the colorblindness tests, it seems I am good to make color assessments of my own images.

Sure no problem. Not sure the two are mutually exclusive, but I'll leave you with your take away. You did an amazing job, with the best gear anyone could ever need. Good for you!

Don't listen to comments like mine or:

Identifying camera and/or lenses based on internet display is, at least, an exercise in futility.
That said, based only on the screenshot crop, I would not print...lack of IQ.

We are full of drivel, and are mean people.

-PC

 

[chauncey]

I'm beginning to think that we should have a Proctologist in attendance.

 

[privatebydesign]

That is pretty much all argumentum ad hominem.

Well that was an offensive thing to say. I found it rather factual and to the point myself.

The only 'correct'* 'color' is done on a neutral tone and that is best done automatically via the WB tool.

So now there is a 'correct' color. And it is 'Neutral tone", "Best done automatically via WB tool."

This is all bad information and false. Please don't spread bad information.

The only neutral tone in the image that is usable is the eye,

You cannot be serious?

putting the WB tool on the eye takes 1 second,

It does? Sounds subjective.

any other 'adjustments' to the WB, color and tint, are entirely subjective.

Not true. WB is a crude method. Read up on Color Rite Passport.

You were not here, you did not see the light I saw, your 'correction' is your subjective assessment of what you think it should look like on your monitor.

Correct

The rest of your drivel is just that, ad hominem drivel.

Yeah I'm just puking garbage. I'm a bad person. That is slow to edit by your standards, posting bad criticism. You are right in every way. Enough is enough, what you have is all anyone needs. Thanks for clearing everything up.

P.S. Thanks for the colorblindness tests, it seems I am good to make color assessments of my own images.

Sure no problem. Not sure the two are mutually exclusive, but I'll leave you with your take away. You did an amazing job, with the best gear anyone could ever need. Good for you!

Don't listen to comments like mine or:

Identifying camera and/or lenses based on internet display is, at least, an exercise in futility.
That said, based only on the screenshot crop, I would not print...lack of IQ.

We are full of drivel, and are mean people.

-PC

Why would you make the assumption that I haven't profiled my camera? Look through my history and you will see it is a core aspect of my replies.

Did I walk up to the owl and put a color checker in the frame with it? No I didn't, but I do have profiles for this camera with this lens and similar light.

But a custom profile will do nothing for the temp and tint, that is why there are so many different 'whites' on an X-Rite Passport, once you have the three channel tone curves in some kind of order the subjective bits are the temp and tint. Again, you were not here, you don't have a clue what the colors were.

Your 'corrections' are entirely incorrect with regards the scene as it was, they are your subjective version of what you believe it looked like on your screen, why is that such an upsetting thing to be told?

As for me being offensive. You told me I was color blind, I proved I wasn't, how exactly is that offensive to you?

I'm beginning to think that we should have a Proctologist in attendance.

Only if he is also a dentist ;D