color temp a defacto filter?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by drs@canby.com, Feb 20, 2005.

  1. Guest

    This isn't limited to digital photography. How appropriate is it to
    consider color temperature a filter? And to what extent is the missing
    or added portions of the color spectrum significant? Even with proper
    white balance are data lost (or added?) at 3000 K when compared to
    8000 K?
     
    , Feb 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:
    > This isn't limited to digital photography. How appropriate is it to
    > consider color temperature a filter? And to what extent is the missing
    > or added portions of the color spectrum significant? Even with proper
    > white balance are data lost (or added?) at 3000 K when compared to
    > 8000 K?


    The real answer is this. Try it yourself and see if it is significant
    to you in the work you do. Other than that you can get thee other answers.
    Someone else's evaluation of the issue based on their equipment, shooting
    conditions and personal judgment, a technically correct answer with lots of
    numbers which are meaningless in the real world or a pure guess.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
     
    Joseph Meehan, Feb 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. C J Campbell Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > This isn't limited to digital photography. How appropriate is it to
    > consider color temperature a filter? And to what extent is the missing
    > or added portions of the color spectrum significant? Even with proper
    > white balance are data lost (or added?) at 3000 K when compared to
    > 8000 K?


    White balance is not at all like a filter. A filter subtracts portions of
    the spectrum before the light reaches your lens. White balance is an
    interpretation of that spectrum. The camera is a machine. It records
    whatever photons strike the imaging material. It has no idea what color
    those photons are. Whenever you take a picture, all the light is recorded.
    Nothing is subtracted in order to adjust white balance.
     
    C J Campbell, Feb 21, 2005
    #3
  4. Guest

    On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:06:36 -0800, "C J Campbell"
    <> wrote:

    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> This isn't limited to digital photography. How appropriate is it to
    >> consider color temperature a filter? And to what extent is the missing
    >> or added portions of the color spectrum significant? Even with proper
    >> white balance are data lost (or added?) at 3000 K when compared to
    >> 8000 K?

    >
    >White balance is not at all like a filter. A filter subtracts portions of
    >the spectrum before the light reaches your lens. White balance is an
    >interpretation of that spectrum. The camera is a machine. It records
    >whatever photons strike the imaging material. It has no idea what color
    >those photons are. Whenever you take a picture, all the light is recorded.
    >Nothing is subtracted in order to adjust white balance.
    >

    I'm assuming that different color temperatures are related to
    differences in photon spectra that strike the sensor. Correct? And
    doesn't that imply that some temps would not have the range of photons
    that others would have? What I'm trying to find out is if the image
    has more "color" at certain temperatures. I'm tempted to say photon
    saturation but I doubt that's the right term. In other words, can you
    extract the same range of color from a properly exposed photo taken at
    3000 K as one taken at 8000 K?
     
    , Feb 21, 2005
    #4
  5. good question. i think you can, though i can't say for certain... as
    long as the quantity of light is the same, the quality (tungsten vs.
    daylight) of the light shouldn't affect the extractable range, barring
    any inherent equipment prefrences...i think.

    i have a question. why can i easily distinguish between different
    notes in music but go bananas trying to distinguish RGB levels for any
    given color? is it just me, or do many have problems with color
    correcting?
     
    googlegroups2sucks, Feb 21, 2005
    #5
  6. C J Campbell Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > >

    > I'm assuming that different color temperatures are related to
    > differences in photon spectra that strike the sensor. Correct? And
    > doesn't that imply that some temps would not have the range of photons
    > that others would have?


    Well, suppose all your light comes from the red spectrum. No amount of
    correction is going to bring back the blue and green colors. You cannot
    record something that is not there. If you walk into a grocery store lit
    with fluorescent lighting then you are not going to be able to see
    everything that you would have with tungsten lighting. If elements of the
    spectrum are missing in the lighting, neither your eyes nor a camera can
    restore them.

    I found it very difficult, myself, adjusting to your world's yellow sun.
    Everything looks so much different than it does under the blue-white sun of
    my planet, even with the special filters in my third eyelids.
     
    C J Campbell, Feb 21, 2005
    #6
  7. Owamanga Guest

    On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:38:13 -0800, "C J Campbell"
    <> wrote:

    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:eek:...
    >> >

    >> I'm assuming that different color temperatures are related to
    >> differences in photon spectra that strike the sensor. Correct? And
    >> doesn't that imply that some temps would not have the range of photons
    >> that others would have?

    >
    >Well, suppose all your light comes from the red spectrum. No amount of
    >correction is going to bring back the blue and green colors. You cannot
    >record something that is not there. If you walk into a grocery store lit
    >with fluorescent lighting then you are not going to be able to see
    >everything that you would have with tungsten lighting. If elements of the
    >spectrum are missing in the lighting, neither your eyes nor a camera can
    >restore them.
    >
    >I found it very difficult, myself, adjusting to your world's yellow sun.
    >Everything looks so much different than it does under the blue-white sun of
    >my planet, even with the special filters in my third eyelids.


    You should have noticed on your way here that our Sun is actually
    white. Only when seen through our atmosphere does it appear yellow, we
    needed to scatter out some of the blue to make the sky that color.

    Presuming your sun is white too, yet it appears blueish from the
    planet surface, I'm guessing your home planet's daylight skies are a
    reddy-yellowish color.

    BTW, no matter what the English tell you, just because you have a
    Scottish name doesn't *actually* mean you come from another planet -
    just that it seems that way to some.

    --
    Owamanga!
     
    Owamanga, Feb 21, 2005
    #7
  8. Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > good question. i think you can, though i can't say for certain... as
    > long as the quantity of light is the same, the quality (tungsten vs.
    > daylight) of the light shouldn't affect the extractable range, barring
    > any inherent equipment prefrences...i think.
    >
    > i have a question. why can i easily distinguish between different
    > notes in music but go bananas trying to distinguish RGB levels for any
    > given color? is it just me, or do many have problems with color
    > correcting?
    >
    >


    Your EARS are MUCH more discriminating than your eyes.

    Think of this... the picture on your TV is flickering at a rate of 30 times a
    second (US NTSC) or 25 times a second (PAL) but you manage to watch it
    anyhow.. If the music from your cd player did the same thing you would go
    NUTS looking for the source of the hum/noise.

    Color correcting/color timeing IS NOT AS EASY AS YOU WOULD THINK!


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry, Feb 21, 2005
    #8
  9. paul Guest

    googlegroups2sucks wrote:
    > good question. i think you can, though i can't say for certain... as
    > long as the quantity of light is the same, the quality (tungsten vs.
    > daylight) of the light shouldn't affect the extractable range, barring
    > any inherent equipment prefrences...i think.
    >
    > i have a question. why can i easily distinguish between different
    > notes in music but go bananas trying to distinguish RGB levels for any
    > given color? is it just me, or do many have problems with color
    > correcting?



    I think I read that the human eye has built in white balance correction
    so we naturally try to make things look normal. Certainly we adjust for
    exposure.
     
    paul, Feb 21, 2005
    #9
  10. Larry Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > googlegroups2sucks wrote:
    > > good question. i think you can, though i can't say for certain... as
    > > long as the quantity of light is the same, the quality (tungsten vs.
    > > daylight) of the light shouldn't affect the extractable range, barring
    > > any inherent equipment prefrences...i think.
    > >
    > > i have a question. why can i easily distinguish between different
    > > notes in music but go bananas trying to distinguish RGB levels for any
    > > given color? is it just me, or do many have problems with color
    > > correcting?

    >
    >
    > I think I read that the human eye has built in white balance correction
    > so we naturally try to make things look normal. Certainly we adjust for
    > exposure.
    >


    We do have "built in" white balance..

    Go for a walk in a leafy forest with a friend who is wearing a white shirt.
    Almost instantaneously the shirt will appear white although most of the
    available light is coming through a green filter.

    Without any "white balance" the shirt will photograph greenish, but you wont
    notice it while you are walking through the forest.

    This is only one example and perhaps not the best example, but it is one that
    is EASY to try for most people.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry, Feb 21, 2005
    #10
  11. Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    Larry <> wrote:
    >
    >We do have "built in" white balance..
    >
    >Go for a walk in a leafy forest with a friend who is wearing a white shirt.
    >Almost instantaneously the shirt will appear white although most of the
    >available light is coming through a green filter.
    >
    >Without any "white balance" the shirt will photograph greenish, but you wont
    >notice it while you are walking through the forest.


    It's possible to fool your builtin colour balance. A couple of years ago, I
    was hiking in Zion Canyon in the southern US, when I looked at my T-shirt,
    which should have been white, and noticed that it was green.

    This seemed strange, and then I looked at my hands, and they were green too.
    So I looked back at my companions, and their skin was also green. In fact,
    *everything* was tinged green.

    When I mentioned this, some of them had also noticed that the world had
    adopted a green tint. It seems that the narrow canyon, with its sheer red
    sandstone walls towering above us had changed the colour of the ambient
    daylight from blue to red, but because the walls were *so* high in that part
    of the canyon, we weren't getting much of a reference from familliar things
    such as the sky, and our colour balance had wandered off.

    After we got into a more open area, everything went back to its usual colour
    within a few minutes.
     
    Chris Brown, Feb 21, 2005
    #11
  12. Guest

    In message <>,
    wrote:

    >This isn't limited to digital photography. How appropriate is it to
    >consider color temperature a filter? And to what extent is the missing
    >or added portions of the color spectrum significant? Even with proper
    >white balance are data lost (or added?) at 3000 K when compared to
    >8000 K?


    Filters don't miss and add portions of the color spectrum, they merely
    cut different frequency levels by different amounts. A red filter
    doesn't make a blue laser beam red; it just makes it very dark.

    Color filters are most useful in Digital only when they equalize the
    maximum level in each channel preventing any of the channels from having
    a low signal-to-noise ratio and heavy posterization.

    The natural color balance of digital cameras, unlike most films, is
    *nowhere* near white. Most RGB digitals are most sensitive in the green
    channel (not because of twice as many green pixels in a Bayer matrix,
    but on a per-pixel level), and almost all are less sensitive in the red
    channel in anywhere from about a half stop to a stop plus. Blue is
    usually about the same as green to about a half stop less sensitive.

    In general, the natural color balance is in the green to cyan range. A
    filter with a hue 180 degrees away from the natural balance of the
    camera, equally saturated, is necessary to use all the dynamic range
    with a white highlight in white light.

    The normal "color temperature" filters are about deviations in raw light
    sources, and do not balance green vs purple, so do not adequately
    compensate a 3-dimensional color cube, or the natural color of the
    digital to white. Putting an 80A filter on a digital under incandescent
    light may allow you to shoot as if it were daylight and use the daylight
    color balance on the camera, but in the RAW data, it will make the blue
    stronger, relative to red and green, but it will make red stronger, too,
    making it stronger than the green. An 80B lets less red through, and is
    more centered on the blue, but it still leaves the blue channels about a
    stop weaker than the red and green on my Canon 20D. It would be two
    stops without the filter. The same filter, twice as thick, would
    equalize the channels very well in incandescent light.

    Why are there no filters adjusted for digital cameras? Because on
    mental lethargy, probably. Digital cameras are treated with film
    mentality.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Feb 21, 2005
    #12
  13. Guest

    In message <>,
    "C J Campbell" <> wrote:

    >White balance is not at all like a filter. A filter subtracts portions of
    >the spectrum before the light reaches your lens. White balance is an
    >interpretation of that spectrum. The camera is a machine. It records
    >whatever photons strike the imaging material. It has no idea what color
    >those photons are. Whenever you take a picture, all the light is recorded.
    >Nothing is subtracted in order to adjust white balance.


    Most converters use the green channel as a reference, and scale the red
    and green to achieve a color temperature. "Subtraction" is not a good
    word to use here, but diminutive scaling of RAW data does in fact occur
    for certain color temperatures.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Feb 21, 2005
    #13
  14. Guest

    In message <>,
    wrote:

    >I'm assuming that different color temperatures are related to
    >differences in photon spectra that strike the sensor. Correct? And
    >doesn't that imply that some temps would not have the range of photons
    >that others would have? What I'm trying to find out is if the image
    >has more "color" at certain temperatures. I'm tempted to say photon
    >saturation but I doubt that's the right term. In other words, can you
    >extract the same range of color from a properly exposed photo taken at
    >3000 K as one taken at 8000 K?


    I guess my original reply had little to do with your question ...

    There will be differences with different temperature light sources,
    because that will change the balance of the frequencies under the
    umbrella of each of the three color filter's effective ranges. How big
    they are, I don't know. One way to find out is to use different color
    temperature light sources and test their effect on the same subject,
    under controlled lighting.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Feb 21, 2005
    #14
  15. C J Campbell Guest

    "Owamanga" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >
    > >I found it very difficult, myself, adjusting to your world's yellow sun.
    > >Everything looks so much different than it does under the blue-white sun

    of
    > >my planet, even with the special filters in my third eyelids.

    >
    > You should have noticed on your way here that our Sun is actually
    > white. Only when seen through our atmosphere does it appear yellow, we
    > needed to scatter out some of the blue to make the sky that color.
    >
    > Presuming your sun is white too, yet it appears blueish from the
    > planet surface, I'm guessing your home planet's daylight skies are a
    > reddy-yellowish color.
    >
    > BTW, no matter what the English tell you, just because you have a
    > Scottish name doesn't *actually* mean you come from another planet -
    > just that it seems that way to some.
    >
    > --
    > Owamanga!


    Oh. Actually, it was an Irishman that told me that.
     
    C J Campbell, Feb 21, 2005
    #15
  16. i feel better knowing i'm not the only one. :) excellent example, btw.
     
    googlegroups2sucks, Feb 22, 2005
    #16
  17. Guest

    On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:17:31 GMT, wrote:

    >Filters don't miss and add portions of the color spectrum, they merely
    >cut different frequency levels by different amounts. A red filter
    >doesn't make a blue laser beam red; it just makes it very dark.
    >

    I didn't know that. I thought they limited or expanded the spectrum.

    >Color filters are most useful in Digital only when they equalize the
    >maximum level in each channel preventing any of the channels from having
    >a low signal-to-noise ratio and heavy posterization.


    Suppose the same lens is used on different cameras with different
    sensors designs. Might one have more "need" for a color filter than
    another?

    And I'm still confused about real-world color temperature. That
    "magical" light of the early morning or late afternoon--is the
    spectrum range the same as at high noon? What I'm trying to understand
    has to do with post-processing. Even though I may not find the light
    as appealing to my eye at noon, if that captures a more robust
    spectral range, then doesn't it follow that I have more to work with
    in post-processing than I would with a photo taken at the more
    appealing times of day? And I'm over my head here, it may be just the
    opposite. Or neither.
     
    , Feb 22, 2005
    #17
  18. Guest

    In message <>,
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:17:31 GMT, wrote:
    >
    >>Filters don't miss and add portions of the color spectrum, they merely
    >>cut different frequency levels by different amounts. A red filter
    >>doesn't make a blue laser beam red; it just makes it very dark.
    >>

    >I didn't know that. I thought they limited or expanded the spectrum.
    >
    >>Color filters are most useful in Digital only when they equalize the
    >>maximum level in each channel preventing any of the channels from having
    >>a low signal-to-noise ratio and heavy posterization.

    >
    >Suppose the same lens is used on different cameras with different
    >sensors designs. Might one have more "need" for a color filter than
    >another?


    Sure, but it depends on what you mean by "need". You can adjust purely
    in software; I am talking about best-case scenarios, which most people
    aren't doing, anyway. Different cameras have different sensors and
    color filters, and therefore have different overall sensitivity ratios
    between the channels.

    >And I'm still confused about real-world color temperature. That
    >"magical" light of the early morning or late afternoon--is the
    >spectrum range the same as at high noon?


    The ratios of different colors change. When the sun is close to the
    horizon, more of the blue end of the spectrum is lost to diffusion in
    the atmosphere, but the warmer colors cut through better.

    >What I'm trying to understand
    >has to do with post-processing. Even though I may not find the light
    >as appealing to my eye at noon, if that captures a more robust
    >spectral range, then doesn't it follow that I have more to work with
    >in post-processing than I would with a photo taken at the more
    >appealing times of day?


    You could alter the noon colors to look like dusk/dawn colors, but the
    difference in lighting between the two is not just color. At noon, the
    light may be a virtual point source of light high in the sky; when the
    sun is near the horizon, shadows are longer and a little softer.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Feb 22, 2005
    #18
  19. Owamanga Guest

    On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:18:15 -0800, wrote:

    >On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:17:31 GMT, wrote:
    >
    >>Filters don't miss and add portions of the color spectrum, they merely
    >>cut different frequency levels by different amounts. A red filter
    >>doesn't make a blue laser beam red; it just makes it very dark.
    >>

    >I didn't know that. I thought they limited or expanded the spectrum.


    No, as far as I know the only thing that behaves that way is a
    fluorescent surface. It's capable of emitting a different frequency of
    light from the one that hit it. Normal surfaces only bounce some of
    the original spectrum that hit them. As for fluorescent filters (real
    fluorescing filters, *not* filters for shooting under florescent
    light), I don't know if they 1) exist, 2) can actually shift
    frequencies but generally this wouldn't be very useful.

    >>Color filters are most useful in Digital only when they equalize the
    >>maximum level in each channel preventing any of the channels from having
    >>a low signal-to-noise ratio and heavy posterization.

    >
    >Suppose the same lens is used on different cameras with different
    >sensors designs. Might one have more "need" for a color filter than
    >another?


    I doubt it.

    >And I'm still confused about real-world color temperature. That
    >"magical" light of the early morning or late afternoon--is the
    >spectrum range the same as at high noon?


    No, it's much warmer at daybreak or late afternoon than at noon. The
    sun continues to emit white light all day and all night, but as the
    angle of the sunlight hitting the atmosphere gets more acute, more and
    more blue from the light gets scattered. Also, dirt in the atmosphere
    helps add to the reddening and there is probably some refraction going
    on too.

    >What I'm trying to understand
    >has to do with post-processing. Even though I may not find the light
    >as appealing to my eye at noon, if that captures a more robust
    >spectral range, then doesn't it follow that I have more to work with
    >in post-processing than I would with a photo taken at the more
    >appealing times of day?


    Firstly, the color temp of the light is only one of the aspects of the
    image that make it appealing. Shadows change (become longer) and
    subjects can become backlit (which is rare at midday, unless the
    subject is above you). Plus, the difference between the background (a
    nice warm shadow-rich lighting) and a properly lit subject with
    fill-flash would be lost if you tried to do this at noon.

    Secondly, your exposure can only capture a fixed latitude, why waste
    some of that capturing light that you'll end up throwing away in post
    processing. (in other words, your exposure will be under-exposed as
    far as the colors you want to keep in the final image) It's much
    better to capture the light in as close to the spectrum as you'll be
    wanting to print later.

    These may sound contradictory, but overall, I'm arguing you shouldn't
    use a filter at noon to color the light, capture the scene at the
    right time of the day instead. It'll look much better.

    >And I'm over my head here, it may be just the
    >opposite. Or neither.


    Yes, a bit of everything.

    That all said, I can't think of a situation where I'd want to put a
    color-casting filter on a digital camera. Even shooting B&W where a
    strong color filter is often used in traditional film photography,
    I'll capture a full-spectrum color image and do the filtration in
    software. White balance for color photos follows the same rule - deal
    with this when importing the raw file.

    --
    Owamanga!
     
    Owamanga, Feb 22, 2005
    #19
  20. Guest

    Thanks. Your explanations are very helpful.
     
    , Feb 22, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bibble Bobble
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    679
    ┬░Mike┬░
    Nov 27, 2003
  2. Chuck Bollinger

    Using grey card to set color temp in camera

    Chuck Bollinger, Dec 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    55
    Views:
    1,684
    dperez@juno_nospam.com
    Jan 3, 2004
  3. ABC
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    438
    Drifter
    Dec 5, 2004
  4. ABC
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,225
    David J Taylor
    Dec 26, 2004
  5. S. Nurbe

    white balance, color temp

    S. Nurbe, Dec 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    356
    Charles Robinson
    Dec 14, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page