Perfect SD9 color, a graphic demonstration (pics)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by George Preddy, Dec 23, 2003.

  1. This set of images vividly shows the SD9's "problem with yellow skin tones"
    under some rare conditions (usually intense sunlight during sunset with Auto
    or Sunny WB selected). As you will see, the "problem" is entirely
    nonexistent, but only if you understand proper RAW workflow.

    This image is processed in Auto. It looks like a throwaway due to the
    saturated yellows ("fur tones" in this case), this is precisely the
    phenomenon many new to SPP RAW workflow mistake for "yellowish" skin tones:
    http://www.pbase.com/image/24387156

    The problem is completely nonexistent, the SD9's color capture in this image
    is nothing short of perfection. Here is the same image processed properly
    in SPP alone, no post processing at all:
    http://www.pbase.com/image/24387157

    Eactly as the scene appeared, feels like you could fall into the picture.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 23, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bs9nq5$7hr$...
    > This set of images vividly shows the SD9's "problem with yellow skin

    tones"
    > under some rare conditions (usually intense sunlight during sunset with

    Auto
    > or Sunny WB selected). As you will see, the "problem" is entirely
    > nonexistent, but only if you understand proper RAW workflow.
    >
    > This image is processed in Auto. It looks like a throwaway due to the
    > saturated yellows ("fur tones" in this case), this is precisely the
    > phenomenon many new to SPP RAW workflow mistake for "yellowish" skin

    tones:
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/24387156
    >
    > The problem is completely nonexistent, the SD9's color capture in this

    image
    > is nothing short of perfection. Here is the same image processed properly
    > in SPP alone, no post processing at all:
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/24387157
    >
    > Eactly as the scene appeared, feels like you could fall into the picture.


    Probably better viewed this way...
    http://www.pbase.com/image/24387156/large
    http://www.pbase.com/image/24387157/large
     
    George Preddy, Dec 23, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. George Preddy

    Chris Quinn Guest

    Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of skin on show
    here, so how can we see the skin tones!

    Tigers are supposed to be orange!


    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bs9o01$7ph$...
    >
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:bs9nq5$7hr$...
    > > This set of images vividly shows the SD9's "problem with yellow skin

    > tones"
    > > under some rare conditions (usually intense sunlight during sunset with

    > Auto
    > > or Sunny WB selected). As you will see, the "problem" is entirely
    > > nonexistent, but only if you understand proper RAW workflow.
    > >
    > > This image is processed in Auto. It looks like a throwaway due to the
    > > saturated yellows ("fur tones" in this case), this is precisely the
    > > phenomenon many new to SPP RAW workflow mistake for "yellowish" skin

    > tones:
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/24387156
    > >
    > > The problem is completely nonexistent, the SD9's color capture in this

    > image
    > > is nothing short of perfection. Here is the same image processed

    properly
    > > in SPP alone, no post processing at all:
    > > http://www.pbase.com/image/24387157
    > >
    > > Eactly as the scene appeared, feels like you could fall into the

    picture.
    >
    > Probably better viewed this way...
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/24387156/large
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/24387157/large
    >
    >
     
    Chris Quinn, Dec 23, 2003
    #3
  4. "Chris Quinn" <> wrote in message
    news:bs9qts$kbk$...
    > Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of skin on

    show
    > here, so how can we see the skin tones!
    >
    > Tigers are supposed to be orange!


    Of around 5000s of pics of people, I don't have any problem skin shots,
    sorry. Mabye to a very small degree, but it is so easy to fix to
    perfection that it's not as interesting as the above. Hang on a sec, I'll
    search for something...
     
    George Preddy, Dec 23, 2003
    #4
  5. Uploading now. While not as bad as the tigers at sunset, it'll be quite
    sufficient to prove the yellow skin tones thing is simply a myth.

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bs9omc$9i6$...
    >
    > "Chris Quinn" <> wrote in message
    > news:bs9qts$kbk$...
    > > Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of skin on

    > show
    > > here, so how can we see the skin tones!
    > >
    > > Tigers are supposed to be orange!

    >
    > Of around 5000s of pics of people, I don't have any problem skin shots,
    > sorry. Mabye to a very small degree, but it is so easy to fix to
    > perfection that it's not as interesting as the above. Hang on a sec, I'll
    > search for something...
     
    George Preddy, Dec 23, 2003
    #5
  6. "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bs9p5c$a80$...
    > Uploading now. While not as bad as the tigers at sunset, it'll be quite
    > sufficient to prove the yellow skin tones thing is simply a myth.


    Processed using AWB in SPP's Auto mode:
    http://www.pbase.com/image/24388672/original

    Processed properly using SPP alone:
    http://upload.pbase.com/image/24388673/original

    Obviously there is a lot of personal taste involved in any RAW color
    rendition, but the "yellow problem" is phony, to the extent that it occurs
    in P&S mode only. All P&S modes have Auto-processing problems (with the
    possible exception of the SD10). The blurry Canon 10D is unusably bad in
    AWB, as noted in the dpreview.com review.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 23, 2003
    #6
  7. Sorry it's so far out of focus. It's an awful SD9 sharpness demo, but I
    think this missed focus snap is a good color demo.

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bs9ps4$b8f$...
    >
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:bs9p5c$a80$...
    > > Uploading now. While not as bad as the tigers at sunset, it'll be quite
    > > sufficient to prove the yellow skin tones thing is simply a myth.

    >
    > Processed using AWB in SPP's Auto mode:
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/24388672/original
    >
    > Processed properly using SPP alone:
    > http://upload.pbase.com/image/24388673/original
    >
    > Obviously there is a lot of personal taste involved in any RAW color
    > rendition, but the "yellow problem" is phony, to the extent that it occurs
    > in P&S mode only. All P&S modes have Auto-processing problems (with the
    > possible exception of the SD10). The blurry Canon 10D is unusably bad in
    > AWB, as noted in the dpreview.com review.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 23, 2003
    #7
  8. George Preddy

    Chris Quinn Guest

    Most digicam users will be taking pictures of people - so I would expect
    that P&S should be able to cope with the most common types of pictures
    without needing post-processing or having to use RAW data - it seems that
    some optimisation is in order by the manufacturer


    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bs9omc$9i6$...
    >
    > "Chris Quinn" <> wrote in message
    > news:bs9qts$kbk$...
    > > Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of skin on

    > show
    > > here, so how can we see the skin tones!
    > >
    > > Tigers are supposed to be orange!

    >
    > Of around 5000s of pics of people, I don't have any problem skin shots,
    > sorry. Mabye to a very small degree, but it is so easy to fix to
    > perfection that it's not as interesting as the above. Hang on a sec, I'll
    > search for something...
    >
    >
     
    Chris Quinn, Dec 23, 2003
    #8
  9. "Chris Quinn" <> wrote in message
    news:bs9teb$o9c$...
    > Most digicam users will be taking pictures of people - so I would expect
    > that P&S should be able to cope with the most common types of pictures
    > without needing post-processing or having to use RAW data - it seems that
    > some optimisation is in order by the manufacturer


    Already done with the SD10. And if we weren't talking about DSLRs, I might
    agree. DSLRs are not P&Ss. RAW mode is non-negotiable for consistent pro
    quality work, so "proper" RAW conversion is not a time penalty. Many
    certainly try to negotiate around shooting RAW mode, but that's due to poor
    implementations and unusable conversion software--hardly an excuse to
    degrade someone's keepsakes to permanent prosumer quality.

    A quality RAW workflow is much faster and more convenient than shooting
    JPEG/TIF, not less.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 23, 2003
    #9
  10. Any luck on the getting that RAW file Chris? It'll be a great demo to
    prove this "problem" is simply made up by those who don't understand RAW
    mode.

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bs9snl$d8g$...
    >
    > "Chris Quinn" <> wrote in message
    > news:bs9teb$o9c$...
    > > Most digicam users will be taking pictures of people - so I would expect
    > > that P&S should be able to cope with the most common types of pictures
    > > without needing post-processing or having to use RAW data - it seems

    that
    > > some optimisation is in order by the manufacturer

    >
    > Already done with the SD10. And if we weren't talking about DSLRs, I

    might
    > agree. DSLRs are not P&Ss. RAW mode is non-negotiable for consistent pro
    > quality work, so "proper" RAW conversion is not a time penalty. Many
    > certainly try to negotiate around shooting RAW mode, but that's due to

    poor
    > implementations and unusable conversion software--hardly an excuse to
    > degrade someone's keepsakes to permanent prosumer quality.
    >
    > A quality RAW workflow is much faster and more convenient than shooting
    > JPEG/TIF, not less.
    >
    >
     
    George Preddy, Dec 23, 2003
    #10
  11. George Preddy

    Chris Quinn Guest

    What RAW file? - I never said I was going to provide one, nor have I been
    asked to


    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bsa10f$f4b$...
    > Any luck on the getting that RAW file Chris? It'll be a great demo to
    > prove this "problem" is simply made up by those who don't understand RAW
    > mode.
    >
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:bs9snl$d8g$...
    > >
    > > "Chris Quinn" <> wrote in message
    > > news:bs9teb$o9c$...
    > > > Most digicam users will be taking pictures of people - so I would

    expect
    > > > that P&S should be able to cope with the most common types of pictures
    > > > without needing post-processing or having to use RAW data - it seems

    > that
    > > > some optimisation is in order by the manufacturer

    > >
    > > Already done with the SD10. And if we weren't talking about DSLRs, I

    > might
    > > agree. DSLRs are not P&Ss. RAW mode is non-negotiable for consistent

    pro
    > > quality work, so "proper" RAW conversion is not a time penalty. Many
    > > certainly try to negotiate around shooting RAW mode, but that's due to

    > poor
    > > implementations and unusable conversion software--hardly an excuse to
    > > degrade someone's keepsakes to permanent prosumer quality.
    > >
    > > A quality RAW workflow is much faster and more convenient than shooting
    > > JPEG/TIF, not less.
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Chris Quinn, Dec 23, 2003
    #11
  12. George Preddy

    Chris Brown Guest

    Chris Brown, Dec 23, 2003
    #12
  13. "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > In article <bs9ps4$b8f$>,
    > George Preddy <> wrote:
    > >
    > >Processed properly using SPP alone:
    > >http://upload.pbase.com/image/24388673/original

    >
    > Love the sharpening halos. Have you perhaps considered turning the
    > sharpening down a bit?


    Like I said, it was way OOF. OOF images are the only reason digital
    sharpening should ever be used, you should never apply it to a well focused
    image, unless your sensor is flawed.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 23, 2003
    #13
  14. "Chris Quinn" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:f3Gb.316$...
    > What RAW file? - I never said I was going to provide one, nor have I been
    > asked to


    Well, how do you expect me to fix the image in SPP?

    It's easy to get perfect color from the SD9 all the time from SPP, every
    time. But you absolutely cannot do it outside of RAW if the original
    creator didn't understand how SPP works and warped the gamut. This is the
    same reason you should never work in JPEG/TIF.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 23, 2003
    #14
  15. George Preddy

    Chris Quinn Guest

    Fix what image? - I think you are getting confused. Perhaps you should read
    the previous postings in this thread.


    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bsahen$934$...
    >
    > "Chris Quinn" <> wrote in message
    > news:eek:f3Gb.316$...
    > > What RAW file? - I never said I was going to provide one, nor have I

    been
    > > asked to

    >
    > Well, how do you expect me to fix the image in SPP?
    >
    > It's easy to get perfect color from the SD9 all the time from SPP, every
    > time. But you absolutely cannot do it outside of RAW if the original
    > creator didn't understand how SPP works and warped the gamut. This is

    the
    > same reason you should never work in JPEG/TIF.
    >
    >
     
    Chris Quinn, Dec 24, 2003
    #15
  16. George Preddy

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    George Preddy wrote:

    > This set of images vividly shows the SD9's "problem with yellow skin
    > tones" under some rare conditions (usually intense sunlight during
    > sunset with Auto or Sunny WB selected). As you will see, the
    > "problem" is entirely nonexistent, but only if you understand proper
    > RAW workflow.
    >
    > This image is processed in Auto. It looks like a throwaway due to the
    > saturated yellows ("fur tones" in this case), this is precisely the
    > phenomenon many new to SPP RAW workflow mistake for "yellowish" skin
    > tones: http://www.pbase.com/image/24387156
    >
    > The problem is completely nonexistent, the SD9's color capture in
    > this image is nothing short of perfection. Here is the same image
    > processed properly in SPP alone, no post processing at all:
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/24387157
    >
    > Eactly as the scene appeared, feels like you could fall into the
    > picture.


    George,

    get a life.
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 24, 2003
    #16
  17. George Preddy

    Alan D-W Guest

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bs9q8t$bs7$...
    > Sorry it's so far out of focus. It's an awful SD9 sharpness demo, but I
    > think this missed focus snap is a good color demo.
    >


    So among all the other reported problems it has autofocus problems too.
     
    Alan D-W, Dec 24, 2003
    #17
  18. George Preddy

    Noel Guest

    On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 02:50:58 +0900, "George Preddy"
    <> wrote:

    >Already done with the SD10. And if we weren't talking about DSLRs, I might
    >agree. DSLRs are not P&Ss. RAW mode is non-negotiable for consistent pro
    >quality work,


    How would you know, as you are not a pro (at anything, from what I can
    tell)?
     
    Noel, Dec 24, 2003
    #18
  19. "Alan D-W" <> wrote in message
    news:3fe967c9$0$13346$...
    >
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:bs9q8t$bs7$...
    > > Sorry it's so far out of focus. It's an awful SD9 sharpness demo, but

    I
    > > think this missed focus snap is a good color demo.
    > >

    >
    > So among all the other reported problems it has autofocus problems too.


    That's Canon. It is very well known that the 10D/300D AF doesn't work.
    Sigma AF is amazing. That's cam shake.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 24, 2003
    #19
  20. George Preddy

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that "George Preddy" <> stated
    that:

    >"Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    >> Love the sharpening halos. Have you perhaps considered turning the
    >> sharpening down a bit?

    >
    >Like I said, it was way OOF. OOF images are the only reason digital
    >sharpening should ever be used, you should never apply it to a well focused
    >image, unless your sensor is flawed.


    What a load of bullshit! No amount of sharpening will help an OOF photo,
    & a little sharpening often improves an in-focus image.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Dec 24, 2003
    #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. Kevin Miller

    Please help with photo demonstration...

    Kevin Miller, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    305
    Marvin Margoshes
    Sep 15, 2003
  2. George Preddy

    SD9 Firmware v2 Night Shots, compared to dpreview's Beta SD9

    George Preddy, Nov 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    95
    Views:
    1,685
  3. George Preddy

    Optical Resolution Test (B&W and Color) - 300D vs. SD9

    George Preddy, Dec 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    894
    Manfred von Richthofen
    Dec 17, 2003
  4. George Preddy

    SD9 shows double the color resolution of the D60

    George Preddy, Jul 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    296
    Bart van der Wolf
    Jul 5, 2004
  5. Daniel ROCHA

    (update) A demonstration for the science

    Daniel ROCHA, May 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    255
    Daniel ROCHA
    May 6, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page