Nice shot!! I love the coulour!!
Thanks Crystal! Yes, the color is what drew my eye. They are delicate tiny little flowers.
That's a lovely flower, Ryan! Great shot! Cheers, Anne
Beautiful, Ryan! Was the color you saw the color you got? Did you have to work with it any? I haven't yet taken any digital photos of blue flowers, my impression is that that they work well. I remember my frustration with slide film, when I was taking lots of flower photos: I couldn't get true blues no matter how hard I tried. (A filter on the camera or on the Cibachrome print print would, of course, throw off the greens that were always there, too. Of course you wouldn't have had that problem with this shot! ;)
Oh Ryan what an incredible treat for these snow weary eyes to see! :D
Thanks Anne, Marilyn, and Pam!
Marilyn, I did some minor color correction on this, as I do on all my photos. I feel the colors that come straight from the camera are always too muddy, as if looking at the scene through a tinted window. In this case, the colors were a very heavy blue color, like the flowers were behind a thick piece of dark blue glass.
Having the right white balance setting helps keep truer colors. But under mostly cloudy conditions, a "daylight" setting makes the scene too blue, and a "cloudy" setting makes the scene too brown. Often, I just pick the lesser of two evils, knowing I'm going to have to correct it later anyway.
Many thanks, Ryan, for taking time to explain--which incidentally gives me another chance to enjoy the shot. You've corrected well, but even heavy colors aren't quite the same problem of blues that were inevitably lavender!
That's very true, Marilyn. That you mentioned slides is an interesting point, since slides are positives, and the colors are in the ARGB color space, colors made strictly from colored light on a white surface. Prints are in the CMYK color space, a subtractive space made strictly from white light reflecting off colored inks. Leaving aside any different you'd see with an offwhite or tinted projector screen, or a print under a tinted light, there are differences between the two color spaces where the gamut does not match. For example, it's not mathematically possible to produce a pure blue in CMYK, and they usually shift toward violet.
But it seems very strange that you'd see this problem with slides. I've never taken slides myself, but I was under the impression that slides gave a richly saturated color spectrum with a wider gamut than prints. Of course, that's assuming the white balance of the film matches the light. If you've got 5000 K slides on a cloudy day, that would certainly shift the spectrum toward blue (and probably shift the blues toward lavender and violet). And with slides there's no second chance to correct.
Fortunately for us today, using digital we have a second chance to correct almost everything!
Interesting, Ryan. I wasn't aware that the gap existed for prints but not--in theory--for slides. I can't say off hand what light conditions produced the problem, though my memory is that it was widespread. I can only say that I certainly experienced the difficulty with slides, and I'd read something that suggested that I wasn't alone.
My father started taking slides in 1941, when Kodachrome was pretty new. He'd done his own darkroom work with B&W before that. Much as he loved the saturated color of slides, he always regretted that loss of a second chance. How he would have loved the possibilities offered by digital photography!
Ryan - This is a neat photo! Also - I rarely visit the Forum, but your utility ROCKS! Thank You! Thank You! I really wanted a list of my photos and view counts - Thank You.
Thanks Maxine. I'm happy you like the photo, and the other thing too. Cheers, Ryan
Sign up to comment.
Sign in if you already did it.
Photo taken in Spring Hill, FL, USA
Misplaced? Suggest new location