Because nobody would buy it :lecture:so why is there no blue food?
-bob
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Because nobody would buy it :lecture:so why is there no blue food?
This is the ultraviolet problem again: one suggestion is to photograph bluebells early in the day - it seems they reflect less uv then.Still, film is, if anything, worse - I remember bluebell woods being the biggest catastrophe.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2003-04-07-blue-ketchup_x.htmso why is there no blue food?
Scott, here is the result with ACR. WB off the right gray card came to 2700 +8.I wonder whether the strange colors out of my GRD-II shot are due to C1's "neutrality" or because the M8 shot was taken with a UV/IR filter. Anyone care to try without using C1, say with Lightroom, ACR or Aperture? The yousendit link to the original raw file is http://download.yousendit.com/F4329A1C3E052E3C .
scott
Hi ScottHi Jono.
I reckon that's pretty close indeed. maybe still a little understated on the reds, so maybe I did overexpose slightly. Does Aperture know anything about the GRs, or just provide a generic DNG handler? Do you have a profile that you use?
scott
Forgive me for being dense, Jono: but if dng is a generic format, then how can there be variants which some programs don't support? [I use Lightroom on a PC]Aperture simply uses it's generic DNG handler. I think we have pretty much the same RAW scenario:
Ricoh dng - not supported.
I suspect the problem is that "generic" isn't the whole story. The standards that define how to read a .dng or .tiff file say where the RG or B values of the pixels are to be found, how to encode the basic characteristics of the R, G, and B filters used, and provide room for lots of metadate, much of it gratuitously obscure or even encoded, so that only the camera maker's proprietary software can use it to get the best image. White balance information is passed along by a single triplet of "average" R,G, and B values, which each software tool turns into a color temperature and a shift along the magenta-green axis, in units known only to the developers of that tool.... if dng is a generic format, then how can there be variants which some programs don't support?
Hi RobertForgive me for being dense, Jono: but if dng is a generic format, then how can there be variants which some programs don't support? [I use Lightroom on a PC]
Hi Jono; I must be very stupid, for I thought that dng was an open format, meaning that anyone could use it, even if the parameters were set by Adobe [possibly with outside influences and suggestions]. I didn't think that there were camera specific functions - this would seem to severely limit its usefulness.Hi Robert
Well, this is a very big can of worms; Adobe did a big deal on DNG being 'universal', but even they have had problems with some Nikon files.
Hi,I suspect the problem is that "generic" isn't the whole story.... scott
Surely notHi Jono; I must be very stupid,
Ah, but I have an open car, but I'd be extremely irritated if everyone could use it!for I thought that dng was an open format, meaning that anyone could use it,
I think that the argument is that to get the best out of your raw files, the .dng (or whatever file) will have camera specific information within it - which is outside the scope of the .DNG spec.even if the parameters were set by Adobe [possibly with outside influences and suggestions]. I didn't think that there were camera specific functions - this would seem to severely limit its usefulness.
Ah - the snow was excellent, the funny french car was a Renault Laguna, the garlic and vin rouge was nearly as good as the chocolate and vino rosso from over the border (but much more expensive). Our baby seemed to be happy, the hotel was wonderful . . . . the only thing which suffered was the photography, but there are a few shots here:BTW, how was the snow up the Alps/the funny french cars/ the garlic and the vin rouge? And did you suffer from getDPI withdrawal symptoms?
HI TerryWow that was a surprise Jono. Most of the ski pictures are from the d-lux3. Did you enjoy using it? No GX100?
You're making it a lot easier for me to rationalize buying either a GRD2 or GX-100 to go along with my Dlux3Most of the time I had the D-lux 3 in one pocket and the GX-100 in the other. I had a long thread worked out for when I got back . . . .then I thought I wouldn't bother.
Basically, the GX-100 has a better interface, and is better at high ISO . . .but:
the Dlux-3 has
1. better colour
2. a better lens (especially at telephoto)
3. 16:9 is much more useful for landscape than 4:3
4. much much less noise in the sky at base ISO.
The real truth however was that the files from the M8 were so much better than either . . . . . . .