Color+exposure>sharpness+contrast?

[darinwc]

I would like to think I have viewed a good many images online and in print. From the images that I have seen, I am starting to think that color balance and/or exposure have a greater effect on image appreciation than does lens quality.
It rarely crossed my mind that an image could have been improved with a 'sharper' or 'contrasty' or for that matter more expensive lens. The only exceptions being bird and wildlife photos which pose greater engineering problems.

It seems to me that when I am viewing images, the most obvious flaws I see are related to either exposure or color balance. Exposure can quickly degrade am image by washing out highlights or adding noise. A small amount of color shift can make an image seem 'off' without really knowing it.

Perhaps the time time I have spent shopping around for one lens brand over another was time wasted.Because I really couldnt tell you if one image was made with an Elmar or a Sears. What do you think?

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I have always been of a mind that color photography can be distracting. Don't get me wrong. I honestly haven't shot any color film in about three years due to economics. However, I do admire a lot of photographs in respect to there hues and vividity(?). But color can distract viewers from the form and tonality of a subject. Sure, fall foliage is fantastic when made with Velvia, et al. But the mastery comes in making that same imapct in monochrome with the effective use of contrast filters.

Black and white photography forces the viewer past the initial warm and fuzzies of color to see the shape of the subject. That is if the viewer has more attention span than a gnat. I have seen a lot of color photographs that were just that, photographs of color. I have also seen many color photographs that were composed and designed with lines and shapes and forms that seemed to run one into the other in a pleasant flow. And those are the photographs that I remember. The colors are fleeting because we are surrounded by it everyday. We see in color, after all.

If I could afford to have color film processed and prints made I would probably be shooting color. But I love the challenge of mood and feeling in black and white photography.

 

[keithwms]

Bear in mind that colour rendition is one of many important ways we colour folks decide what lens to buy or to use for a particular purpose. There are some issues like warmth or coldness of the colour rendition that colour shooters tend to worry about more than b&w shooters, very generally speaking. there are some issues like apo correction than some b&w shooters really scoff at! But I believe that if you are dedicated to doing high quality colour photography, you do need to think about such things.

Also bear in mind that anything you see online has likely been changed or manipulated in some way, tonally or in terms of effective white balance etc. I know that you know this, I am just saying. How many of our scanner settings and monitors really match up to reality?

Also bear in mind that almost no film colour is literal. I don't like the idea that b&w is inherently more artistic whereas colour is literal and thus non-artistic. It's just not true. Colour photographers have just as much creative latitude as b&w shooters, if not more. By the way, if anybody wants to see a literal-colour photo, get a digital, put it in auto-WB mode, raw, neutral contrast and colour rendition, in a setting with a dominant light source... and you'll get your (blah) literal colour. The result will be highly literal, in a way that can be quantified. It'll not look anything like what you get with most colour films (with a few exceptions, e.g. specialized tungsten films for art repro under carefully arranged light).

 

[darinwc]

Also bear in mind that anything you see online has likely been changed or manipulated in some way, tonally or in terms of effective white balance etc. I know that you know this, I am just saying. How many of our scanner settings and monitors really match up to reality?

I would argue that all photographs have been changed or manipulated in some way. Film has a characteristic curve that reacts differently than our eyes do. Different films (color AND bw) react differently to different colors. Printing adds in another interpretation of values and colors.

I think that is my point here is that the process of exposure, capture, and presentation, both film and digital, have a greater impact on the final image than the choice of lenses ever will. So I would recommend to stop looking for that next magic bullet and concentrate more on the act of photographing and the image processing, whether it be wet or digital.

 

[keithwms]

Well, yeah, certainly I agree that there are no magic bullets.

But there are three types of images that, to me, strongly feature the characteristics of the lens. Namely: images from holgas, petzval/ antique brass lenses, and pinholes (if you'll allow me to call pinhole a lens). The effects from those can be so strong and characteristic, IMHO, that one must take care that the image isn't about the lens...

 

[Mick Fagan]

When shooting and printing colour with an array of different lenses, one quickly learns that there is a colour factor with lenses. By that I mean that my Nikkor lenses, which are all from the same era, have approximately the same colour. This means that if I run three lenses whilst shooting transparency film, I do not have to worry about slight colour changes between the different lenses.

When I switch to another brand of lens I know that I have to add a CC10 yellow correction, however as this is for 35mm photography and usually speed is of the essence, I don’t. If however I am printing colour from C41 negative then I know I have to correct for the slight colour shift on the enlarger head.

I have a chart in my darkroom, which lists the slight corrections required when printing with the different branded taking lenses.

So in essence, your shopping for one brand manufactured in the same era, is possibly a desirable thing, but for practicality, I don’t think so.

As for sharpness, colour balance and density of the image, the better corrected taking lens will usually show a superior print, providing you give enough density in the film exposure to allow enough density in the print.

I do have some very good colour prints from a technical point of view, not necessarily content good though. Every one of these prints was originally shot with an exceptionally good taking lens, generally an apochromatic corrected lens.

These lenses are also superb for B&W work.

I have two other outstanding lenses, one is the Nikkor f/2.5 105 Nikkor for 35mm, and the other is an old Calumet-Ilex Caltar f/6.3 215mm lens, for a 4x5 camera. Both of these lenses are superb with colour and B&W with the Caltar being around 40-50 years old and the Nikkor being about 30 years or so.

As time went by I could sometimes tell by the look of a print which taking lens was used, in time and with constant practice, you may be able to do the same.

Mick.

 

[darinwc]

Mick, youve made some very good points. Out of curiosity i just pulled out a couple of my different cameras/lenses and unscientifically evaluated there color. heres some results:
canon FDn 50mm f1.4 Most neutral of the bunch, maybe even a touch cool.
minolta 50mm MD f2 hard to judge since it was the slowest of the bunch, I kept thinking warm but it could just be dark.
Pentax M 50mm f1.7 - neutral
canon fl f1.2 50mm - slightly warm
pentax 50mm f1.4 Super multi coated m42 - noticeably warm
Nikon - ak I dont have a nikon 50mm.. will have to rectify that =]

Anyway, it would certainly be useful to know the color balance of your lenses.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Darin, you cannot really see the difference with the naked eye, one has to run film through and get correct colour balance on one lens, then do a comparison test of your other lenses.

The best way is with transparency film using a spot on E6 processing bath, take measurements from the film then use these as a base.

However more in keeping with normal darkroom practice, I made a colour corrected print with my most used lens as the standard. I then did prints of the same scene that were taken using my different lenses and noted the correction required in both density and colour, to arrive at a "as near as possible" identical colour print.

For instance, my 105 Nikkor is my most used lens and therefore became my standard reference point. Just checking in my darkroom chart, I note that if I used my 55 Micro Nikkor, I have to allow for a 3 Magenta difference and add 1/8 of a stop in exposure time to arrive at a near identical print from that lens.

I hope this quickly scribbled input makes sense.

Mick.

 

[markbarendt]

It seems to me that when I am viewing images, the most obvious flaws I see are related to either exposure or color balance.

Actually, I'd even postulate that exposure is the root of most color balance problems.

When that one fact sunk into my head and I really started placing my exposures purposefully my photography improved about 2 to 3 full levels, everything got so much easier.

Perhaps the time time I have spent shopping around for one lens brand over another was time wasted.Because I really couldnt tell you if one image was made with an Elmar or a Sears. What do you think?

As with anything the biggest improvements, the first 80-90% of quality possible, comes in simply getting the basics right. Getting the last 10-20% of the possible quality is where exceptional tools really can make a difference.

 

[keithwms]

The root (or at least one major root!) of colour balance problems is that some who use colour film do not colour meter.

 

[markbarendt]

The root (or at least one major root!) of colour balance problems is that some who use colour film do not colour meter.

That too.

 

[darinwc]

The root (or at least one major root!) of colour balance problems is that some who use colour film do not colour meter.

I dont think you neccesarily need a color meter, but it is important to account for color. Making corections for tungsten or flouescent lighting, shade, and elevations go along way towards a natural looking print. And also for bw, using filters to separate colored objects can certainly make a big difference.

I have a question: will post-processing give the same net affect as filters during exposure??

 

[E76]

I have a question: will post-processing give the same net affect as filters during exposure??

Not always! For example, shooting daylight balanced film under tungsten illumination without filtration will result in severe color crossover, which can rarely be corrected in printing—there won't be enough blue light recorded in the negative. Minor corrections, however, can usually be made. Remember: it is always better to use a filter than to attempt correction in printing, and with slide film, you don't have much of a choice but to use filters.

 

[Q.G.]

Not always! For example, shooting daylight balanced film under tungsten illumination without filtration will result in severe color crossover, which can rarely be corrected in printing—there won't be enough blue light recorded in the negative.

Which also is a great example of filtration not always being able to 'safe the day' either.
The blue end of the spectrum just isn't there in tungsten light. So while a filter can block as much of the red end to balance both ends somewhat, it can never add the blue that isn't there. So filtration at exposure will help a lot, but will never produce perfect results.

 

[Q.G.]

Colour meters (and you need the expensive, three colour thingies. Not just the colour temperature meters) are nice, but can drive you crazy if you think you must do what it suggests each and every time you want to expose a frame.

But not only do we not want the nuisance of having to carry a full (and expensive) kit of correction filters and put different combinations in front of the lens, we also do not want all of our colour photos to be 'neutral'.
Colour casts are part of the world we live in (shadows are blue, sunsets are red, sodium lights are orange, fluorescent lights are green, etc.), so why filter them all away?
Long live unbalanced colour!

 

[darinwc]

Colour casts are part of the world we live in

Definately.. but the photographer needs to be control and actively think about it for best results, which may or may not include a neutral color balance.

 

[keithwms]

Colour casts are part of the world we live in (shadows are blue, sunsets are red, sodium lights are orange, fluorescent lights are green, etc.), so why filter them all away?
Long live unbalanced colour!

I kinda disagree The eye has a complex mechanism for compensating for changes in colour temp. so that we tend to see a rather neutral image with our eyes. We do not see strongly blue shadows; we do not see green faces illuminated by fluorescents, etc. Indeed, we see colours as roughly warm or cool but we don't see the shifts in colour balance with nearly as much accuracy as film sees them. We simply do not see blue shadows, not at all. Vaguely cool, maybe, but not nearly as blue as one can get with some films or with some print methods like ilfochrome.

Soo..... why should our photographs have blue shadows? Without colour metering or at least some intuition about the colour temp, the colour rendition for the film can be way off.... why [rhetorical question] do we let that happen if we know full well that the viewer of the photograph will perceive an unnatural colour cast? I think it is an interesting question at the core of the effectiveness of colour photography.

Bottom line, colour metering can and does make a big difference. Not always of course, but people who take colour balance seriously do typically colour meter, and that technology has been around as long as colour photography.

I'd also like to point out, as I mentioned in a recent blog, that there is some clear similarity in the way we see under low light (i.e. with scotopic vision) and the dehued black & white image we capture on b&w film. So I would even go so far as to question the 'unreality' of the b&w image as well. Okay, a bit off topic...

Join the colour group!!! :rolleyes:

P.S. Colour meters are quite cheap, actually. Just get a digital camera... You get full colour histograms, white balance functions, colour temp measurement etc.... and scene metering. And a 'proof' shot that can be useful for the film shot. I use a dslr quite routinely to meter for LF colour slide. But of course there are lots of film cameras with colour matrix metering; you don't have to buy the pricey colour meter to get good results.

 

[Q.G.]

Definately.. but the photographer needs to be control and actively think about it for best results, which may or may not include a neutral color balance.

That's true. Particularly the thinking part.

But that usually does not require a precise measuring instrument and a full set of filters.

A small set of cooling and warming filters, and your own judgement will take care well enough of most outdoors situations.

Artifical light is rather more tricky, requiring more effort to achieve neutral results. Unless you bring the lights yourself, or unless there only is one lightsource, it however is almost impossible to balance the different lamps you will come across. So a rough approximation will be the best you can hope for. Again, you do not really need a meter and a large set of filters to do that.

So i think it will be best not to exert yourself too much (trying to get the light right using a meter and a set of filters can be a lot of work!), and accept the approximations.
And then you aren't really allowing "colour balance problems" to persist, but rather showing the world as it is.

 

[Q.G.]

I kinda disagree The eye has a complex mechanism for compensating for changes in colour temp. so that we tend to see a rather neutral image with our eyes. We do not see strongly blue shadows; we do not see green faces illuminated by fluorescents, etc. Indeed, we see colours as roughly warm or cool but we don't see the shifts in colour balance with nearly as much accuracy as film sees them. We simply do not see blue shadows, not at all. Vaguely cool, maybe, but not nearly as blue as one can get with some films or with some print methods like ilfochrome.

Soo..... why should our photographs have blue shadows? Without colour metering or at least some intuition about the colour temp, the colour rendition for the film can be way off.... why [rhetorical question] do we let that happen if we know full well that the viewer of the photograph will perceive an unnatural colour cast? I think it is an interesting question at the core of the effectiveness of colour photography.

Well, yes and no.

We do see that artifical light is decidely 'warmer' than daylight. We do see that fluorescent lights are greener (which is why there is such an uproar against the silly EU directive prohibiting the sale of incandescent lights. The general consensus is that the fluorescent lights we are supposed to use instead produces terrible colour). We do indeed see that shadows in the snow are not just darker, but clearly blue.

We may not always be conscious of that. But that is not entirely because we compensate in our brains. It is for a large part because we do not expect it to be different. Shadows are supposed to be cooler, because that's is how we know them to be.

But it is true, both that we 'compensate' (we explain away), and that we cannot discern small differences.

It is also true that in photos, the effect can be stronger than we expect. That is in large part for the same reason why we object to converging verticals in prints, while we never ever would think them strange when we look up at a building: the context is wrong. We cannot reconcile the viewing conditions with what we are seeing.

So yes, there is a case for metering and filtering.
But just like you can over do a 'correction' of converging verticals (we can't reconcile parallel verticals with the overall perspective of the print, and our knowledge that we are looking at a tall building, So a 'correction' should leave a degree of convergence), you can over correct colour too.
Colour in a print too still has to be in accordance with what we would expect to encounter in real life. And that (real life) is full of 'wrong' colour.
(Despite our compensating eyes, and what have you.)

Bottom line, colour metering can and does make a big difference. Not always of course, but people who take colour balance seriously do typically colour meter, and that technology has been around as long as colour photography.

And the importance of colour metering and correction can be overstressed. Correction can be overdone.
We need (!) to see blue shadows in snow, in prints too. (Again, just like we need to see convergence in a tall building.) Quite simply because we do know the world as a place of ever changing, not always neutral colours.

I'd also like to point out, as I mentioned in a recent blog, that there is some clear similarity in the way we see under low light (i.e. with scotopic vision) and the dehued black & white image we capture on b&w film. So I would even go so far as to question the 'unreality' of the b&w image as well. Okay, a bit off topic...

I agree completely. (Except about the off topic bit. )

Join the colour group!!! :rolleyes:

I eventually found it (you have to use the search box).
But also saw that it (still?) is a small version of the general forums.
In this thread alone there is more said about colour than in the colour group. Am i right?

P.S. Colour meters are quite cheap, actually. Just get a digital camera... You get full colour histograms, white balance functions, colour temp measurement etc.... and scene metering. And a 'proof' shot that can be useful for the film shot. I use a dslr quite routinely to meter for LF colour slide. But of course there are lots of film cameras with colour matrix metering; you don't have to buy the pricey colour meter to get good results.

I already have colour meters. Had them before colour matrix metering and before digital cameras were both anywhere near affordable and advanced enough to show histograms and all that.

 

[keithwms]

Incidentally I question whether you actually see any significant green cast from fluorescents by eye... particularly if they are balanced to 5000K. The green cast and the overall colour temp are two quite different issues. The colour temp is derived from a broad spectral range... many hundreds of nanometers. The green cast comes from a very narrow range, specifically it comes the 546nm mercury line that is very narrow (we use it for calibration in the lab because it is so narrow). It takes a medium with quite good wavelength resolution to detect that spike; your eyes cannot do it.

Anyway, I generally agree that comments in favour of colour metering can be excessive, but I would also assert that there is an awful lot of smack on the 'net about this or that film not having good colour rendition and then upon closer examination, lo and behold, it almost always turns out the complainant doesn't colour meter!!! I ask, so what was the colour temp. The usual response is, the what? It was 80 F outside, is that what you mean??!! (okay that was a joke )

 

[keithwms]

But also saw that it (still?) is a small version of the general forums.
In this thread alone there is more said about colour than in the colour group. Am i right?

Well, the colour group is brand new. I think it will grow if discussions continue to be this interesting! Also, I think we have a bit more latitude for discussions regarding "other" methods for dealing with colour. Which is not to say that any of us are pushing digital capture per se, that is not what I mean.

Anyway... people of colour, unite!

 

[Q.G.]

Incidentally I question whether you actually see any significant green cast from fluorescents by eye... particularly if they are balanced to 5000K. The green cast and the overall colour temp are two quite different issues. The colour temp is derived from a broad spectral range... many hundreds of nanometers. The green cast comes from a very narrow range, specifically it comes the 546nm mercury line that is very narrow (we use it for calibration in the lab because it is so narrow). It takes a medium with quite good wavelength resolution to detect that spike; your eyes cannot do it.

Well, i really think the answer is 'yes'.

We may not recognize it as green per sé, but while being accustomed to varying colour temperatures (there are barely two lamps in any household producing light of the same colour temperatures, if any at all), we do instantly recognize that the light produced by fluorescent lights is quite different.

(Here again context plays a role. We are all used to fluorescent tubes in large fixtures on the ceiling of offices and other work places, and do not even take notice of how they differ in colour. But put a fluorescent light in a desk or table lamp at home instead of the usual incandescent bulb, and you instantly see something's not right. The troublesome thing is that experience teaches us that you don't get accustomed to it: it is just the wrong light for many applications.)

And we do that using tools no more high tech than our own eyes, yes.

Now why do you think that how broad the band is matters? The yellow sodium lines are very narrow too, but highly visible. Broadness of the band does not determine whether we can see it or not.

Anyway, I generally agree that comments in favour of colour metering can be excessive, but I would also assert that there is an awful lot of smack on the 'net about this or that film not having good colour rendition and then upon closer examination, lo and behold, it almost always turns out the complainant doesn't colour meter!!! I ask, so what was the colour temp. The usual response is, the what? It was 80 F outside, is that what you mean??!! (okay that was a joke )

Perhaps, yes.

I believe though that a lot of criticism of film's colour is aimed at their hue and saturation, not the colour temperature balance. Nor the result of incidental colour casts.
Some film has a distinct green bias. Other films blow reds out as if only block colours would be allowed. Other films are felt to be too 'grayish', to unsaturated. Etcetera.

All very real and true observations.
None of which are the result of not using a colour temperature meter, nor 'solved' by doing so.
Films just are different. And it shows.

 

[keithwms]

Well, let me put it this way: with colour metering I do not have any problem picking the right film and filter combo to get good colour rendition, that was my point. That does not mean that I obsess over colour temp- actually I very rarely colour filter. But we do decide whether to use 5000K or tungsten film.... and colour metering can be important for b&w too. Ultimately the correct exposure really requires some thought about the spectrum of the light on the subject compared to the spectral sensitivity of the film. An extreme case would be b&w IR.

Sodium lamp... that's quite different from the case of the mercury lines superimposed on a broad emission in fluorescents, no? Again, the fluorescent has a well defined colour temp that you can tune right to 5000K, but the mercury lines are still there and can give a wacky cast.

Anyway I think we've made the points we set out to make

 

[Q.G.]

(Now don't think that i disagree about the importance of getting colour balance right. Even though i know that you musn't go over the top with filtration and supposed 'correction', i don't. It is, as so often, a matter of the right meassure.)


Re the thing about people complaining about film, while - as you say - they themselves are to blame:
Consider this. When you talk about picking the right film and filter combo, you are saying that there are films that are wrong.
When people comment about a film, have "problems" with its colour, they and you are in agreement.


The sodium lamp was mentioned in reply to your suggestion that, because the green line is so narrow that your instruments barely see it, we can't see it either.
It doesn't matter one iota whether there is a strong line in a continuous background of lower energy, or only one such line (or in the case of a low pressure sodium lamp, 'nearly' one): whether it is visible or not does not depend on how broad the line is.

The difference between the sodium lines and the green mercury line is that the sodium lamp shows little else in the visible spectrum. Which makes it a fine demonstration of how the width of the line does indeed not matter at all.

(By the way: i once had one of those cheapish, small, handheld spectroscopes, and it did not seem to have much trouble showing the line spectrum of fluorescent lamps. The thing somehow disappeared, but now i have a plastic grating, from a 'build your own' cardboard spectroscope kit, and it too shows the lines. ).

 

[benjiboy]

Mick, youve made some very good points. Out of curiosity i just pulled out a couple of my different cameras/lenses and unscientifically evaluated there color. heres some results:
canon FDn 50mm f1.4 Most neutral of the bunch, maybe even a touch cool.
minolta 50mm MD f2 hard to judge since it was the slowest of the bunch, I kept thinking warm but it could just be dark.
Pentax M 50mm f1.7 - neutral
canon fl f1.2 50mm - slightly warm
pentax 50mm f1.4 Super multi coated m42 - noticeably warm
Nikon - ak I dont have a nikon 50mm.. will have to rectify that =]

Anyway, it would certainly be useful to know the color balance of your lenses.

I find that one advantage of keeping to marque lenses, Canon FD, in my case is that they seem to all have the same colour balance , I think It's based on that of the 50mm 1.4 and the rest of the range are coated to match, so that if you're shooting slides and change lenses the clour balance stays the same