Exposing the truth: How to take unreal pics with your DSLR!!! -or- You are EXPOSED!
- Thread starter Battlecorals
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)
ls2ttgto
Community Member
Nice write up Adam. Nailed it. I know a few people that just shoot auto and turn down the blue channel in photo editing application, and a few people that let the camera process the image. I rather do it at the camera as the Canon works very well at doing this.
rovster
Well-Known Member
Oh boy, THANK YOU ADAM!!!! Love this new technique, it makes for some really flattering corals. These are a couple of quick shots, with no photoshop, straight out of the camera. I didn't pay to much attention to image quality, but you better believe this weekend I'm going to have some fun with this. I present to all of you....
Tyree Disco Inferno Lemonade supreme....
BattleCorals SuperHyperBerryLicious....
Battlecorals Bionic Purple Magical Flamingo.....
PC SuperDuperMan Table....
PC LavaLiciousRainbowGoodness.....
BC The Bond....
ORA Plasmatron Acro....
ATL Shades of Flying Saucers.....
Uniques Extreme KiwiStrawberryShortcake.....
Tyree Disco Inferno Lemonade supreme....
BattleCorals SuperHyperBerryLicious....
Battlecorals Bionic Purple Magical Flamingo.....
PC SuperDuperMan Table....
PC LavaLiciousRainbowGoodness.....
BC The Bond....
ORA Plasmatron Acro....
ATL Shades of Flying Saucers.....
Uniques Extreme KiwiStrawberryShortcake.....
LoveTheReef
Well-Known Member
Great write up Adam.
As a couple of other members posted, the key is for the photographer to use his/her best judgement. Yes, with technology you can really go wild in how you can make the corals look. Personally, I can almost never take an accurate shot like Adam showed (taking a pic in AWB and then using that pic for CWB). With the blue lights, the "white plate" trick doesn't work all the time either. For me, I end up finding myself taking 20-30 pictures at different spots in the tank in AWB setting, and then using every single one, one at a time, to set the CWB. One of them usually does the trick in showing the correct colors.
Even then, when they're imported on to the computer, for me they don't always look as nice as they did on the camera -- slightly more blue. Once again, we as photographers have to use our best judgement to adjust the white balance on the software to make the coral(s) look most life like. For me personally, I know I take pictures in the afternoon when I'm at the store, and I'm editing them at 1 or 2 am at night when I am home and the family has gone to sleep -- so every once in a while (though rare), mistakes do happen in representing perfect colors (since I can't see the coral while I'm fixing the white balance, and just going by my memory of ..... thousands of corals). One good example is some of the acan pictures I took a while back -- in the pictures, looked like the skirt of one of the acan's was white, when in reality, it's more light tealish. Luckily someone asked, I double checked, and canceled / halted all sales of that particular acan until I could get new more accurate pics out to the prospect buyers.
I guess my advice to fellow reefers would be to just ask. I believe most of the vendors here are honest vendors, and would not mind double, triple, or quadruple checking the colors of corals for you if you ask. And of course, if you don't run blues in your tanks, always always always ask the vendor(s) for picture of the coral under white lights that you are genuinely interested in. Most of us will not mind taking pics under white lights for you guys. As someone else mentioned already, most reefers would much rather buy corals with pictures taken under blue lights vs white lights, because obviously blue lights make the corals look more appealing. And while myself and I'm sure a few others, would love to take pictures of every single coral under both blue and white, unfortunately it is far too time consuming. So .... just ask!
Last bit of my thoughts .... not all blue's are equal As of now, we solely use PacificSun lamps (in-process of trying out lamps from other manufacturers as I type this), and even in those lamps, the "blue" setting between the older gen lamps (R2 series) and the newer gen lamps (S series), varies TREMENDOUSLY! Under R2 series, the blue setting is nice deep blue, which makes the colors pop like crazy; under S series, the blue setting is on the lighter side, so while you still get the pop, it's not quite as good as under the older R2 series. So .... sometimes it indeed is the light too Isn't all this confusion amazing? lol
- Archit
As a couple of other members posted, the key is for the photographer to use his/her best judgement. Yes, with technology you can really go wild in how you can make the corals look. Personally, I can almost never take an accurate shot like Adam showed (taking a pic in AWB and then using that pic for CWB). With the blue lights, the "white plate" trick doesn't work all the time either. For me, I end up finding myself taking 20-30 pictures at different spots in the tank in AWB setting, and then using every single one, one at a time, to set the CWB. One of them usually does the trick in showing the correct colors.
Even then, when they're imported on to the computer, for me they don't always look as nice as they did on the camera -- slightly more blue. Once again, we as photographers have to use our best judgement to adjust the white balance on the software to make the coral(s) look most life like. For me personally, I know I take pictures in the afternoon when I'm at the store, and I'm editing them at 1 or 2 am at night when I am home and the family has gone to sleep -- so every once in a while (though rare), mistakes do happen in representing perfect colors (since I can't see the coral while I'm fixing the white balance, and just going by my memory of ..... thousands of corals). One good example is some of the acan pictures I took a while back -- in the pictures, looked like the skirt of one of the acan's was white, when in reality, it's more light tealish. Luckily someone asked, I double checked, and canceled / halted all sales of that particular acan until I could get new more accurate pics out to the prospect buyers.
I guess my advice to fellow reefers would be to just ask. I believe most of the vendors here are honest vendors, and would not mind double, triple, or quadruple checking the colors of corals for you if you ask. And of course, if you don't run blues in your tanks, always always always ask the vendor(s) for picture of the coral under white lights that you are genuinely interested in. Most of us will not mind taking pics under white lights for you guys. As someone else mentioned already, most reefers would much rather buy corals with pictures taken under blue lights vs white lights, because obviously blue lights make the corals look more appealing. And while myself and I'm sure a few others, would love to take pictures of every single coral under both blue and white, unfortunately it is far too time consuming. So .... just ask!
Last bit of my thoughts .... not all blue's are equal
As of now, we solely use PacificSun lamps (in-process of trying out lamps from other manufacturers as I type this), and even in those lamps, the "blue" setting between the older gen lamps (R2 series) and the newer gen lamps (S series), varies TREMENDOUSLY! Under R2 series, the blue setting is nice deep blue, which makes the colors pop like crazy; under S series, the blue setting is on the lighter side, so while you still get the pop, it's not quite as good as under the older R2 series. So .... sometimes it indeed is the light too Isn't all this confusion amazing? lol- Archit
From the few online folks now that I buy corals from (very few) I usually ask for different pictures, day light pics etc compared to the highly blue LED/Radium lit or over saturated pictures to get comparison to what originally posted as what the coral looks to the daylight pics. I make the educated decision on what that coral I will think it will look like in my tank and justify cost of said coral before I buy.
regardless, great post Adam.
regardless, great post Adam.
kschweer
Moderator
I remember the first time I walked into my house wearing mine. I was shocked at how things looked. And as a side note I will never buy another pair of glasses. I've had just about everything and none compare to my costas.
I was just about to post this. I have the 400 series.
When I take pictures through my Costa del Mar polarized lenses I get a picture that is pretty true to what my eye sees. It's not exactly but very close.
Sea MunnKey
Valuable Member
Not sure if this will work on a Nikon. Might try it out ...
rovster
Well-Known Member
pledosophy
Active Member
This is just ONE of the many many tricks dishonest people use to manipulate pictures. The term "new technique" being used by people here is bothersom. These actions are dishonest, and should be looked on as so. If you are making art you can do whatever you want, but if you are selling a product and taking deliberate actions to misrepresent the look of that product, shame on you.
As a professional photographer for the last 18 years our hobby's view of color has always been concerning. If I do a shoot for Nike, or Nordstrom the color of the photographs I give them has to be 100% accurate. Not 98%, 100 %. It is very easy to do.
A color chart is $10-15 bucks depending on if you want the grey scale in there too.
You can balance the color per coral to 100% accuracy in a minute. Extra cost is $10-15 one time fee.
Now if you buy a shirt in a catalog for $10 and the color is off you get to return it. The company can get in trouble for misrepresenting the product. But when we buy coral for $250 based on color, consumers don't excersise that same right.
I know that some people have "ways" of telling how much something is manipulated. Trained eyes can see things sure. But trained people like myself if I chose can also fool most anyone if we take the time and want to. My favorite completely inaccurate way that people "tell" if a picture has been manipulated is by the color hue on the egg crate.
The other big fallacy is that you can tell with Black Eggcrate if it has a hue to it. Do you know there is a tool in Photoshop and lightroom, that will desaturate that specific hue, and it can be painted on certain parts of the picture in a matter of seconds leaving the coral color alone. Now would anyone take the extra 20 seconds to do that if they can increase the sale on the coral by a hundred bucks and rip someone off. I hope not... what do you think?
Recently there was an etailer who had a neon pink bubble tip anenome, ultra rare, $1500. Anyone ever see a RBTA bleach? Photograph that with a blue white balance with a little manipulation... you turn a dying coral into a $1500 profit.
If you guys want to change the habits of retailers making sales off of dishonest methods then everytime you get a coral in that does not look like the picture, return it and demand every cent you paid back. Then come on here and let everyone know. This is our community. If we want to change it, we need to change it.
As a professional photographer for the last 18 years our hobby's view of color has always been concerning. If I do a shoot for Nike, or Nordstrom the color of the photographs I give them has to be 100% accurate. Not 98%, 100 %. It is very easy to do.
A color chart is $10-15 bucks depending on if you want the grey scale in there too.
You can balance the color per coral to 100% accuracy in a minute. Extra cost is $10-15 one time fee.
Now if you buy a shirt in a catalog for $10 and the color is off you get to return it. The company can get in trouble for misrepresenting the product. But when we buy coral for $250 based on color, consumers don't excersise that same right.
I know that some people have "ways" of telling how much something is manipulated. Trained eyes can see things sure. But trained people like myself if I chose can also fool most anyone if we take the time and want to. My favorite completely inaccurate way that people "tell" if a picture has been manipulated is by the color hue on the egg crate.
The other big fallacy is that you can tell with Black Eggcrate if it has a hue to it. Do you know there is a tool in Photoshop and lightroom, that will desaturate that specific hue, and it can be painted on certain parts of the picture in a matter of seconds leaving the coral color alone. Now would anyone take the extra 20 seconds to do that if they can increase the sale on the coral by a hundred bucks and rip someone off. I hope not... what do you think?
Recently there was an etailer who had a neon pink bubble tip anenome, ultra rare, $1500. Anyone ever see a RBTA bleach? Photograph that with a blue white balance with a little manipulation... you turn a dying coral into a $1500 profit.
If you guys want to change the habits of retailers making sales off of dishonest methods then everytime you get a coral in that does not look like the picture, return it and demand every cent you paid back. Then come on here and let everyone know. This is our community. If we want to change it, we need to change it.
ReefMadScientist
Valuable Member
This is just ONE of the many many tricks dishonest people use to manipulate pictures. The term "new technique" being used by people here is bothersom. These actions are dishonest, and should be looked on as so. If you are making art you can do whatever you want, but if you are selling a product and taking deliberate actions to misrepresent the look of that product, shame on you.
As a professional photographer for the last 18 years our hobby's view of color has always been concerning. If I do a shoot for Nike, or Nordstrom the color of the photographs I give them has to be 100% accurate. Not 98%, 100 %. It is very easy to do.
A color chart is $10-15 bucks depending on if you want the grey scale in there too.
You can balance the color per coral to 100% accuracy in a minute. Extra cost is $10-15 one time fee.
Now if you buy a shirt in a catalog for $10 and the color is off you get to return it. The company can get in trouble for misrepresenting the product. But when we buy coral for $250 based on color, consumers don't excersise that same right.
I know that some people have "ways" of telling how much something is manipulated. Trained eyes can see things sure. But trained people like myself if I chose can also fool most anyone if we take the time and want to. My favorite completely inaccurate way that people "tell" if a picture has been manipulated is by the color hue on the egg crate.
The other big fallacy is that you can tell with Black Eggcrate if it has a hue to it. Do you know there is a tool in Photoshop and lightroom, that will desaturate that specific hue, and it can be painted on certain parts of the picture in a matter of seconds leaving the coral color alone. Now would anyone take the extra 20 seconds to do that if they can increase the sale on the coral by a hundred bucks and rip someone off. I hope not... what do you think?
Recently there was an etailer who had a neon pink bubble tip anenome, ultra rare, $1500. Anyone ever see a RBTA bleach? Photograph that with a blue white balance with a little manipulation... you turn a dying coral into a $1500 profit.
If you guys want to change the habits of retailers making sales off of dishonest methods then everytime you get a coral in that does not look like the picture, return it and demand every cent you paid back. Then come on here and let everyone know. This is our community. If we want to change it, we need to change it.
True but I can make a picture subject look completely different and leave the egg crate untouched. It is a good identifier but not always.
Similar threads
