Is there a lens that is as good as the human eye?

[naoki]

The "color" of lens does exists especially in the old glasses, but most modern ones don't have strong tendency. JPEG engine is more of the culprit in the difference in the out-of-camera color. For example, Olympus has a bit of vivid green colors, and Nikon has a little calmer color to me. I had only one Sony, and I didn't like the cold, blueish color. There is youtube video testing these difference in the color. I wouldn't be able to tell which one came from which camera, but there were quite difference. If you shoot in raw, you can correct the color better.

Also, do you know how to use custom white balance? I'm sure G1 has it.

But if you are using a wrong color light (e.g. low CRI fluorescent or LEDs), there is a limit, and you can't completely get the color you want even with raw.

A part of the contrast comes from how you use the light. If the light source is really close to the subject, you get the dramatic contrast. If you place it further, it becomes more flat, and it may be better for descriptive photos. Then the angle of light also influence how the texture is rendered. To get more dramatic effect, you want to light it from the side (or top or bottom).

So the contrast and color is part of lighting technique. It is not so easy to MASTER the light!

With regard to the sharpness (which isn't same as contrast), aperture does influence it.

At the bottom of this thread, there is a youtube link, which may get you started with understanding the light: cheap high CRI LED bulbs for photos - Slippertalk Orchid Forum- The best slipper orchid forum for paph, phrag and other lady slipper orchid discussion!

I'm guessing that your dissatisfaction is coming from the higher perceived dynamic range of human eyes. So the photo looks different from what you saw. Since it is backlighted, and the window is really bright, the subject is blacked out. You probably should have used fill flash so the leaves doesn't become completely dark. Or I would have avoided placing the window in the background by changing the composition. The strong washed out region in the background is distracting in general. Also, since it is in shadow, you get the blueish overall impression. I would use a little more yellowish color balance (even though it could deviate from the true color, it will cheer up the image).

[Wathepleela]

Originally Posted by naoki

I'm guessing that your dissatisfaction is coming from the higher perceived dynamic range of human eyes. So the photo looks different from what you saw. Since it is backlighted, and the window is really bright, the subject is blacked out. You probably should have used fill flash so the leaves doesn't become completely dark. Or I would have avoided placing the window in the background by changing the composition. The strong washed out region in the background is distracting in general. Also, since it is in shadow, you get the blueish overall impression. I would use a little more yellowish color balance (even though it could deviate from the true color, it will cheer up the image).

Spot on! Thank you for taking the time and all the helpful info/advice. I will digest and respond in a longer post later but for now per your suggestion I have changed the camera angle a bit, turning away from the window (actually those are the slits at the top of the balcony low wall) toward the side wall. As a result I got more details from moving away from a bright background.

I'm putting up two shots, both have before (untouched) and after (tweaking with re- white balancing, exposure, levels and curves; sorry can't help with the last tool, that's the one that messes with the colors.) I realize that my eyes can resist the bright background, but the camera can't. It's like putting it under stress already before I even click the shutter. In the after pics I washed out the colors of the flowers a bit to convey the mood of "suffused light."

Pic#1

Phal999web.jpg

phalfri4web.jpg

Pic#2

Phal984web.jpg

phalfri3web.jpg

[Wathepleela]

Originally Posted by estación seca

People actually will spend many hours on one image, altering the color one small section at a time.

My Lou Sneary has flowers that are very close to blue. My phone takes them as pink:
Neostylis Lou Sneary 'Blue Horizon'

Thanks for the link...I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to see blue on those flowers of your Lou Sneary. Maybe when inspiration strikes, you would make another attempt (with camera instead of smartphone)?

[nogreenthumbs]

Originally Posted by naoki

I'm guessing that your dissatisfaction is coming from the higher perceived dynamic range of human eyes.

This ^.

It's much, much less about the lens (eye or camera) and much more about the dynamic range and post processing (brain).

Digital sensors can't touch the human eye for dynamic range. If you consider that your eye can perceive tiny differences in the shade of clouds and then tiny differences in the shade of the night sky (whether it's the Milky Way or light pollution in/near a city), and a digital sensor can differential a tiny fraction of that range. Then our brains can/do fill in between the lines which is not going to happen with a camera.

Then you've got computer monitors which are generally crap at displaying correct colors unless you've got an appliance for correcting that.

It's not the lens, it's the rest of the system.

[naoki]

Originally Posted by Wathepleela

I'm putting up two shots, both have before (untouched) and after (tweaking with re- white balancing, exposure, levels and curves; sorry can't help with the last tool, that's the one that messes with the colors.) I realize that my eyes can resist the bright background, but the camera can't. It's like putting it under stress already before I even click the shutter. In the after pics I washed out the colors of the flowers a bit to convey the mood of "suffused light."

Great work! They look nice.

[Wathepleela]

Originally Posted by naoki

Also, do you know how to use custom white balance? I'm sure G1 has it.

At the bottom of this thread, there is a youtube link, which may get you started with understanding the light: cheap high CRI LED bulbs for photos - Slippertalk Orchid Forum- The best slipper orchid forum for paph, phrag and other lady slipper orchid discussion!

Yeah, I think I found it on my G1 - two custom setting 1 and 2, I guess I'll have to point the lighted square to some white patch of my choice?

I watched the lighting video from the link you gave, very informative, thanks. It reminds me of the actors in Chinese opera, most of them (asians) don't have high-bridged nose, so they create deep shadow by darken both sides of their nose, while painting the (imaginary) bridge itself white. Some day I will get myself a lighting setup like yours which will allow me to do studio work, that'll be nice.

Originally Posted by nogreenthumbs

This ^.


Then you've got computer monitors which are generally crap at displaying correct colors unless you've got an appliance for correcting that.

It's not the lens, it's the rest of the system.

You read my mind...Currently my color sense is totally scattered. My flat screen monitor bit the dust recently, that leaves me to work off the laptop screen, which has a very cool color temperature. Additionally I like to move my photos onto my Samsung tablet, so I can look at them while on the road (read coffee shops). Samsung screen color is notoriously saturated. Between the tablet and the laptop my eyes go beserk. I got a break by sending the pics over to my smartphone, which thankfully is neutral. On top of that, I wear different pairs of glasses, one for outdoors, one indoors. The indoors has computer-reading coating (blue)...As you mentioned I'm thinking of getting a color calibrator and a reliable (colorwise) flat screen monitor before getting anymore photographic hardware.

However, after all said and done, photography still has to rely on the human eye to "fill in between the lines," so that the human brain can enjoy the image presented on a flat dimension by reflecting on what it has similarly seen before with its own eyes. Since, like many have said here, nothing man-made can equal the dynamic range of the human eye, that translates to photography at best, can only deliver something second-rate.

That is something I'm still (trying) coming to term with. It works on the same principle of the chinese paint brush, a few flicks from the wrist of the painter could transport you to a scene in a bamboo grove, where a mother hen leads her chicks in search of ground worms. After all, it operates on the same trick of getting the (memory of) our eyes to fill in the blanks.

---------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 PM ----------

Originally Posted by naoki

Great work! They look nice.

Thanks, glad you like the pics...Funny thing is I find myself lately very often simply putting the camere down, pulling up a low stool then just sitting and looking at my model the phal...

....and having an IMAX moment!

[Wathepleela]

I stumbled on some notable quotes listed on this site:

Inspirational Photography Quotes – Perception | Paul Chong Photography

and thought to share them here with dear members of orchid forum who have joined in the discussion:

-"It takes a lot of imagination to be a good photographer. You need less imagination to be a painter because you can invent things. But in photography everything is so ordinary; it takes a lot of looking before you learn to see the extraordinary.” – David Bailey

-“Photography is a way of putting distance between myself and the work which sometimes helps me to see more clearly what it is that I have made.” – Andy Goldsworthy

-“The difference in “seeing” between the eye and the lens should make it obvious that a photographer who merely points his camera at an appealing subject and expects to get an appealing picture in return, may be headed for a disappointment.” – Andreas Feininger

-“One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it… If we limit our vision to the real world, we will forever be fighting on the minus side of things, working only to make our photographs equal to what we see out there, but no better.” – Galen Rowell

-“Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs.” – Ansel Adams
“It’s amazing how you can create your own little world in the camera.” – Trevor Dayley

-“Photography is a small voice, at best, but sometimes one photograph, or a group of them, can lure our sense of awareness.” – W. Eugene Smith

-“Vision is the true creative rhythm.” – Robert Delaunay

-“Art is not what you see, but what you make others see.” – Edgar Degas

-“If the vision is strong enough, and your goals are steady, and you believe, pretty soon you bring other people with you.” – Mike Rounds

The ones that directly answer my quandary are Andreas Feininger's and Galen Rowell's, especially the "if" clause in the latter: "If we limit our vision to the real world..." To me that seems to pretty much define the realm of photography - to go beyond what we see. Attached is a pic (by Robin Wong from his blog) I find a wonderful illustration to that notion:

simply robin.jpg

[On second thought, (still "clinging to the vain hope...") maybe I should venture on to the next realm: Videography, anyone? -just kidding! A further link from Galen Rowell's quote leads me to what looks like a very interesting read:]

Mastering Photographic Composition, Creativity, and Personal Style - Alain Briot - Google Books

[Tetra73]

I think I am a little late in this thread. You should look into macro photography. When you are taking photos of orchids, you are actually shooting macros. The color can be difficult to understand since your indoor ambient light would contribute the color cast. Underexposed shots would shift your color balance as well. Most of the time, you have to correct them in the post processing by adjusting the white balance and the color balance.

No, this isn't something you can do or can learn to do in few days.

[Wathepleela]

Originally Posted by Tetra73

I think I am a little late in this thread. You should look into macro photography. When you are taking photos of orchids, you are actually shooting macros. The color can be difficult to understand since your indoor ambient light would contribute the color cast. Underexposed shots would shift your color balance as well. Most of the time, you have to correct them in the post processing by adjusting the white balance and the color balance.

No, this isn't something you can do or can learn to do in few days.

I'm not into macro for the simple reason that I look at a photo the same way at a painting, or a "tableau" so to speak: background is significant for me, it's like putting things in context, background=context. Re color cast, I totally agree and as I have stated earlier on the thread, my aspiration was taking a pic in a way that as little post-processing as possible - or none -would be necessary. You and other members have pointed out that this is impossible, and post is more or less a fact of life.

So now I 'm content to let my visual memory guide me in post in order to get a result as "true" to life as possible, that how it has always worked for me. I liken this to painting a portrait, you look at the subject and then go back to work on your brush and canvas. In my case, relying on my visual memory turns out to be more accurate than just staring at the subject, for the simple reason that it is my sentiment that guides me, not my eyes, which tend not be consistent, as affected by the time of the day, and often lead me to "color cast" even further.

[SouthPark]

Originally Posted by estación seca

Vision is more than a lens and a retina.

I'm a few years late on this. But it's true. I notice that when I'm watching an orchid flower with my eyes fairly close up (near) to the flower - it generally appears (visually) to me that the width of the main lobe (of the lip) of the flower is wider than what is captured in the camera image.

I'm thinking it's because I have two eyes, spaced apart by some distance, so both eyes combined can see around the lip more than what a single camera lense can see - up close that is.

So I notice in some orchid photos that the lip of an orchid doesn't look as grand or wide as I actually saw the flower with own eyes.

Maybe stereo cameras or 3D cameras can get a better view around the flower, like our two eyes do - to get a better 'look' at the flower - better than what a single lense photograph can capture.