Death Valley Sunset

[Isaac]

No, I presume that because a fallacy has been made that claim can be dismissed and a better reasoned claim sought.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

No, I presume that because a fallacy has been made that claim can be dismissed and a better reasoned claim sought.

You are totally right as usual.
Still too many words and too little images.
Seriously.

[Isaac]

Jeff Schewe is right. When photographers say that they are preparing a file for a print so that it corresponds to the way they remember the scene, what they really mean is the way they would "like" to remember the scene. Nothing wrong with that, but nobody really has an accurate memory about the way the light and color of a landscape looked six months ago.

Do you think people have an accurate memory about the way the color looked 6 hours ago? How about 6 minutes ago?

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

For you there's Flickr :-)

Whatever that means.
And as usual you are totally right, etc ...

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Nothing to be puzzled about -- if you wish to see photos look at a photo sharing site.

Thanks for pointing that out.
Never thought of that.

[Isaac]

Don't be too concerned, you aren't the only one ;-)

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Don't be too concerned, you aren't the only one ;-)

What a relief!
And I thought ...

[Peter_DL]

Sorry to be solid, but there are two sides to this WB business. I understand the artistic and perception related side. So I agree that there must be degree of freedom to adjust the WB to obtain a pleasing picture. I just don't understand where the WB comes in.

The sensor reads R,G,B values from pixels. So that's a color. Why can this color not be used - or even seen by the user ?

Sure it can be seen, but it makes an ugly green image - unless under fancy light conditions
(or with a magenta filter in front of the lens). See UniWB, or here.

I would have naively said that one would calibrate in white light, and normalize the R,G,B values read off the sensor to the same value (for white light, one expects R=G=B, if the camera's sensor and color filters are normalized). But perhaps that doesn't work ?

Sure it works. Click-whitebalance in the Raw converter e.g. on the second gray (white) of the known ColorChecker chart will furnish you with an own calibration / preset in terms of Color Temparature and Tint for the corresponding light e.g. noon Daylight.

For a sunset shot, I'd start to look for a pleasing WB setting rigth in-between auto-whitebal and the Daylight preset as described
(probably more at the Daylight side).

Certainly a discussion on its own.

Peter

--

[hubell]

This is why I find it so comical when Photographer X waxes poetically how he tries to replicate in his prints what he saw when he pressed the shutter. Even funnier is when he says that he tries to replicate what he "felt", and the photograph is totally over the top in contrast and saturation. Sort of scary if that's what he actually saw. [G]

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

This is why I find it so comical when Photographer X waxes poetically how he tries to replicate in his prints what he saw when he pressed the shutter. Even funnier is when he says that he tries to replicate what he "felt", and the photograph is totally over the top in contrast and saturation. Sort of scary if that's what he actually saw. [G]

Maybe most people simply try to obscure they're just trying to have fun.
Which is not the worst to do in art.

[David Sutton]

So you don't trust any theatre critics, sports commentators, political analysts etc., until they have produced their own Broadway show, or won Wimbledon, or run a country?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I pay attention firstly to those commentators/critics who obviously know their subject deeply and can articulate their thoughts. And then secondly to those who are able to articulate their position. Meaning the influences that brought them to their current place in the political or social spectrum, for want of better words. “This is where I stand and why I stand here”.
So no, you don't have to be a practitioner to be a contributor, but you'd better have other skills to make up for that if you are going to be taken seriously.

Edit: Just changed my mind. 
I firstly pay attention to critics/commentators who are in love with their subject. Robert Hughes and Kenneth Clark come to mind.

[Rob C]

This is why I find it so comical when Photographer X waxes poetically how he tries to replicate in his prints what he saw when he pressed the shutter. Even funnier is when he says that he tries to replicate what he "felt", and the photograph is totally over the top in contrast and saturation. Sort of scary if that's what he actually saw. [G]

And the most scary of all: the guy who believes the other guy who told him that it's possible to show character in a portrait.

What bloody tosh! You can't do it, and if you catch the Annie L documentary - Life through a Lens - she and others tell you that and why it can't be done. Believe them, they are correct; I know because I've often tried to do just that and still can't hack it. Nobody has. Ever. It's the Golden Holy Grail. It's why we try. It's the photographic Everest Plus.

Rob C

[jeremyrh]

Reduction to the absurd. Let's stick with good old photography, about which at least one of knows something.

Rob C

And one of us - but apparently only one - knows what "reductio ad absurdum" means.

[Isaac]

fwiw

Our sense of colour is so sensitive that we can distinguish many millions of different colours. However, we cannot remember these differences. That is, if two colours are not shown simultaneously, our ability to distinguish them diminishes dramatically. It is probable that we normally remember only a few colours, for example the eleven focal colours ... However, under certain conditions, up to thirty can be remembered ... and with training it is possible to remember and distinguish up to fifty different colours. Remembered colours also tend to be more saturated (that is more intense) than they actually were...

page 21 The Colour Image Processing Handbook, 1998

[Ed B]

So you don't trust any theatre critics, sports commentators, political analysts etc., until they have produced their own Broadway show, or won Wimbledon, or run a country?

Not really. The best sports analysts are generally the guys who have played the game. When it comes to movie critics, I never listen to what they have to say, I'd rather be my own judge when it comes to what entertains me. And when it comes to politics, ha! Not sure if you live in the States but politics here is a complete joke. Wait, strike that, I don't want to turn this into a political debate.

[LesPalenik]

Once you start making improvements and intensifying colors, it can become an addition. Same as with plastic surgery improvements. Some take it too far.

[michael ellis]

Thanks Nick, I think it does partly answer my question.
But imagine I want to be a forensic landscape photographer. Imagine I do not want to interpret the scene in a pleasing way, but rather be as objective as possible, and just "measure" the scene in a picture. So I do not want to inject the WB into the equation. Why can I not do this, why MUST there be a white balance (whether it's through the RAW WB setting or cooked into the JPEG) ?

I suspect this has to do with the fact that you need to take out the color response of the CMOS (or CCD). For example, the CMOS is much more sensitive to the red (than to the blue) and if you don't do this correction, then the image really looks funky (i.e. completely red, with the blue almost completely black). And I assume this correction depends on the input spectrum, i.e. the color of light illuminating the scene. So you MUST input this externally to the CMOS image - lower the red, so that the blue has a chance of being seen.

But perhaps there is another reason ?

Sorry from deviating this thread from Kevin's nice picture to the fundamentals of why we MUST white balance a shot...

I think you should be able to set up a white card so that it is lit by the light from the sunset, then with the proper tool you could measure the color temperature of the light and then set your white balance to that.

Michael

[ron ritcher]

Also known as.

Geez . . . quite hiding behind that Cliff Notes logic-link, will you?  And while you're at it, do you mind telling me, in you own words please, just what about my comment you could dismiss so flippantly?  Again, my point was that whether or not I can or will share photographic samples shouldn't disqualify me from offering opinions and even suggestions to posters on this forum.  Feel free to disagree (as a few have already), but just where's the fallacy?

And my small bone to pick with Tony came in the wake of his essentially calling you out.  Now, I realize that coming to your aid doesn't, in itself, lend any credence to my argument, but it strikes me odd that you'd so-easily try and kick a defender under the bus.

And to Kevin (and many others): forgive my digression, if you will . . .

Ron

[Ray]

I don't see a problem here. One takes a shot of a sunset presumably because one finds the moment impressive, unusual, wondrous, dazzling, attention-grabbing, spectacular, awe inspiring and so on.

As one processes the image, one hopes to recreate that emotional experience which inspired one to take the shot in the first instance. If one errs on the side of excessive vibrancy, so what!

If the image is for scientific purposes, or for ordinary practical purposes such as displaying the various shades of Dulux paint for sale in the hardware shop, then accuracy is required because customers might complain if the color of the paint in the tin is noticeably different from the advertised shade in the brochure.

I like the attached sunset shot because the cloud formation looks a bit like a dragon. if I were to make a print of this image, I'd title it, "The Fiery Dragon".

Anyone who infringes my copyright on this image will be eaten by the fiery dragon, so be warned. 

[Isaac]

Geez . . . quite hiding behind that Cliff Notes logic-link, will you?  And while you're at it, do you mind telling me, in you own words please, just what about my comment you could dismiss so flippantly?

The error you identified in Tony Jay's challenge is also-known-as the genetic fallacy. The very same fallacy listed at that "Cliff Notes logic-link".

So, a re-iteration of your comment rather than a dismissal of your comment.