Colour Invariance

>>3012363
Just be more consistent.

You'll get there with practice.

Just shoot JPEG and get it right in camera nerd

>>3012363
You can use color cards and cameras that are not so variant with regards to ISO setting and colours to help you a bit.

>>3012363
Noob here - can you show examples of what you're talking about for those of us that aren't as good?

>>3012380
hilarious

>>3012389
I did experiment with letting the raws more or less untouched. Only a bit exposure corrextion and a little white balance. The basic algorithm should let the pictures be quite similar. Unfortunately this is not the case since a sensor does process colours differently from situation to situation. Means: It is insufficient, because the pictures are still invariant (tho less in comparsion to when I heavy post process them).

>>3012390
This was something I thought about. It seems like the best option. But I am not sure if the WB calibration on location must necessarrily be so much better than a raw correction in post. In the end the camera calibrats with the same parameters I also can adjust in post. So it sounds good, but I'm afraid the result will not be better than now.

>>3012391
I'll make you an example. Soon.

1: if you have different scenes, the difference in color can be justified.
2: if you have to work on a set... work on it a whole, and keep it in mind.
Have to admit I'm also struggling with that though.

>>3012363
>i'm a hell of a good photographer
>i always worked b&w

b&w has almost completely died - it's very likely that you're delusional and are just a shit photographer.

>>3012392
> But I am not sure if the WB calibration on location must necessarrily be so much better than a raw correction in post.
Actually, I was thinking you do the RAW correction in post, but now with the help of a shot in each series taken with a colour card. Or even the color card visible to you in each frame, if you must.

>fix white balance and profiles for a shoot
>???

File: invariance.png (359KB, 732x621px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 732x621px

<- this for example. All shots were taken on different days. In post only exposure and WB were corrected on the raw files.

I am aware that e.g. a sky has not always the same blue tone. But I could see that the variance is related to that the sensor reacted differently to the mix of all colours present in the scene. Therefore it is hard to maintain a consistent tone for the colours, not only the blue, also the green etc.

My best guess so far is to filter the fuck out of the pictures, to enforce a monolithic look. But this in contrary to my idea of image quality.

>>3012394
I'm also thinking about to just let it be and accept that pictures from different sets have different looks. But on the other hand I think it must be possible to get an overall style of the pictures, which makes them look connected, regardless of the different scenes.

>>3012399
I see. Well, it would be worth a try. If you enforce the colour card to the exact same tones everytime, the pictures should look connected. ... I just fear that this kind of post processing will fuck up the single picture, since every picture needs different processing to get the best out of it .. normally ..

>>3012407
Noob here again - thanks for making that example! What are the colourful squares that you have at the bottom of the image and how did you generate them?

With your colour issue - is it to do with the fact that you have different exposures in each photo? Ignoring the third, fifth and 7th photos when the sky wasn't visible - what would happen if you set all the raw images to the same colour temp and tint (eg 6200k and 0 tint) and then adjusted it so that each photo had the same exposure? This would obviously fuck up your foreground exposures but wouldn't you get similar tones in the sky unless the sky is actually a different colour each time?

>>3012743
the squares are the top crops mapped on a colour palette. the bottom squares are the same palettes but with maximum saturation, which show the differences more obviously.

in theory you are right and given that circumstances, the pictures should show the same tones. but in reality a digital sensor does not react consistently to all situations. e.g. if there is blue in the sky and a lot of green in the scene the result will be different from when there is blue and a lot of red in the scene.
this is because it is not so easy to build a photo-sensitive pixel which cuts out an exact range of the electromagnetic spectrum. there are always overlaps among the channels and therefore they influence each other which leads to a different tone when different colors were present.

>>3012407
cool example. can you show me an example in the same way of good variance?

>>3012818

I think he's trying to say that he doesn't want any variance at all. The problem is, he's shooting a different sky in every picture, and who knows what white balance he's using.

>>3012407
several of these have obvious color cast issues that you might correct with white balance. e.g. the ones with the red tones are red-balanced. if you want to impart a color cast to your photos, fine. but if you're going for a monolithic look you should probably start from the same point...

>>3012769
erm, no. it's not due to the sensor itself.
only the white balance processing, which always tries to find a middle ground averaged out of the whole scene. so yeah, you'll get the automatic WB different. but choose the same white balance when editing your RAW, and you'll get very consistent results.
color sensitivity on a pixel is independent from the surrounding cells. there might be differences in color rendering due to the sensor, if you use a different ISO (extremely high sensitivities tends towards magenta, at least on my camera)

>>3012998
you are misinformed. it's not about that the diods in the array would influence each other, but - as I said (maybe next time read better) - the problem is that the diods can not cut the spectrum exactly.

let's say you scene a blue backdrop with a red cube in front and the cube fills a third of the picture. the red diods gather the red light, the blue the blue. ok. since red is quite "far" away from blue (see a chart of the optical elecromagnetic spectrum for reference) blue will be quite blue in the result as well as red red.
but what if the cube is green? green is closer to blue and what then happens is, that the blue diods react not only to the blue but also a little to the green light. (just as red diods also react to infra-red [NIR] for example).
this little light "bleeding" will cause that the blue will be shifted in tone when setting the WB to get the precise green.

you can easily test my statement yourself. you will see that the same backdrop shifts tone when another colour is prominent, and you adjust to that colour is precise.

alternatively you could think before you talk. up to you.

>>3013821
>you can easily test my statement yourself. you will see that the same backdrop shifts tone when another colour is prominent, and you adjust to that colour is precise.
The age old question of showing things as they are vs showing them how you'd prefer they be

wish artfags would leave photography alone and develop some actual artistic abilities and leave photography to the documentarians, journalists, and others that actually fit the medium.

>>3013825
I'm not complaining. I was just correcting what anon said so ignorantly.

For my aim to get a monolithic look, I deal with the limitations the technology has. I don't "wish it would be how I'd prefer". It is how it is.

But this does nit mean that there is no solution or workaround. And this is what this thread is about.

You know, I see that you don't contribute anything because you have no clue what to do there. But is it really necessarry to post random blahblah just to intrude at all costs?

File: 084.png (102KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 300x256px

>>3013829
>You know, I see that you don't contribute anything because you have no clue what to do there. But is it really necessarry to post random blahblah just to intrude at all costs?
I believe you might be autistic my man

File: best-hairstyles-for-white-men-llfmubvjs.jpg (17KB, 288x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 288x400px

>>3013852

>>3012411
You can of course deviate and make local or global adjustments if needed?

But at least you start from an initial "calibration" where you quite objectively know that color balance near the card (which would be near the main features of a subject) was the same.

>>3013821

That could be it, or it could be that you're using a different white balance for every photo that you shot at different times in different days.