Uff! uff! Now I have done exactly what I tried to avoid: triggered a new long and convoluted discussion, including a new show down between Andrew and Bill Janes. I consciously kept my question out of that thread, even if it belonged in the context. I deliberately presented my innocent little question without mentioning what I wanted to use the answer for. And now…Posts keep coming faster than I can reply. This one belongs after post #19.
First off: Many thanks to all of you for your concern.
The limitations you mention in post #16 are obviously all true - but yet, on one and the same paper or screen, some renderings look more natural than others. I am aware of that what I try/tried to achieve can only be a very rough approximation. It is/was just a first attempt to come up with an alternative to an AWB - which on its part suffers from the very same limitations. And then some: If I understand it right, it has by definition to assume an average color balance, and try to achieve that.
I would like to share a key experience which greatly confirmed my suspiciousness towards automatisms - if that was ever needed. - In the days of film, I took 2 images of a scene in northern Sweden, one around noon, one shortly before sunset. As exspected, the transparency of #2 was much more red than #1. Later, I had these 2 images scanned on an Imacon. In the default rendering of the Flexcolor software, #2 was *more green* than #1! Obviously, the automatism thought "No, so much red can not be true", and obviously, it was wrong.
> In theory maybe. In practice not entirely.
> There are color scientists working on color appearance models that could greatly aid in getting closer to your goal. But we’re not there yet.
See this sounds much better to me than just "It's subjective."
With regard to the bluish: most of the images on my web site are processed after my hitherto workflow, that is shot with AWB and processed As Shot. First recently have I changed the WB to Daylight in some of them. Beyond these 2 alternatives, I have not tried to modify color in any way. I hope, that the images shown look reasonably natural. I don't find them bluish.
> Please don't take what I'm saying as criticism of your work.
I certainly don't! Your diagnosis "You really don't like saturation. I see you prefer the 'natural' look." is entirely in accordance with my self-understanding.
A little aside: Ditching your fellow Texican countryman Brian Griffith's Raw Developer for its default color rendering sounds to me like throwing away a jewel because one doesn't like the color of the wrapping paper. As said, I don't like that default rendering either - for reasons opposite to yours. But why use the default rendering? Yes, RD does not support DNG profiles, you have to make ICC profiles, and I had to learn a little bit of Unix to use Argyll for that. I find the deconvolution sharpening the trump card of RD.
Thank you for this informative post.
> why not merely take a reading from a neutral card illuminated by the same light as the subject (if that is possible).
Maybe I should try that. Would it be more precise than the rough scale quoted in my first post?
The color event, I read, consists of 3 parts: the incident light, the light reflected from the objects, and my brain.
In relationship to this triangle, the photographer shooting art for reproduction, or objects for a catalogue, may try to achieve accuracy by standardizing shooting light and viewing light to make them "fall out of the equation", so that, under standard viewing light, the image will look the same as the object.
In (my) landscape photography, on the other hand, the color of the light is part of the subject - I want to catch it, not to standardize it out.
I read that my brain has some sort of AWB - but it is not 100%. I remember walking a late summer afternoon in the inner city of Copenhagen with its half-timbered white houses. In the sun of that late afternoon, these houses did NOT seem white to me, but pink. It is this pink I want to capture. The grey card method would eliminate it, wouldn't it? I think it would leave the problem: to what degree should I follow it? But I will try it.
> but one must realize that daylight is a combination of sunlight, skylight, light scattered from clouds, and reflected light from the ground, vegetation, and surrounding buildings (in the case of a more urban environment).
If I conceive the latter as the light I do NOT want to filter out (if any), then it may indeed sound like my intended "method" may not be that bad after all.
Good light! - Hening.