At 01:17 PM 10/29/2008, Ken wrote:
>Moose wrote:
>>I like the first two. Composition of the third is nice, but the red
>>channel blocked up, leaving no detail in the berries. A classic problem
>>with digital and bright reds.
>
>Yeah, those are nice! As to the reds blocking up, I agree. However, I have
>noticed that not all RAW converters are equal in that regard. At issue is
>the fact that the human eye actually does not see red, but the camera does.
>(the eye sees orange and the absence of green and processes it for red
>recognition). Red is not represented with enough bit-depth and goes
>out-of-gamma far too easily. One way around this is to work in color-spaces
>other than sRGB or even aRGB.
<snip>
What about lab color space? Have you ever worked much with that space?
I actually started liking it quite a bit inspired by reading Dan Margulis's
book.
I was under the impression it actually matched how the eye sees better?
I know one channel a color blind person does not see at all.
WayneS
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|