Different processing RAW files for H or V shot

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, wiskerke said:

 

 

 

 

So all those squares are actually the same colour?

 

Me a bit confused......🤔

Edited April 15, 2022 by geogphotos

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

So all those squares are actually the same colour?

 

Me a bit confused......🤔

Square A and Square B are identical in LH image (i.e. they have the same RGB values), and they are the same in the RH image (although not quite the same RGB values as the left image - not sure why as they should be). See the Wiki page Wim referenced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion

 

Mark

Edited April 15, 2022 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

Square A and Square B are identical in LH image (i.e. they have the same RGB values), and they are the same in the RH image (although not quite the same RGB values as the left image - not sure why as they should be). See the Wiki page Wim referenced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion

 

Mark

 

Square A and B don't look identical to me. One is lighter and one is darker.

 

What about the other squares are they all the same colour - and if so why does it look like a checker-board?

 

Not sure that this jiggerypockery needs to be something I think about taking stock photos - tell me otherwise please.

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by geogphotos

[M.Chapman]

54 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Square A and B don't look identical to me. One is lighter and one is darker.

That's the whole point it's an optical illusion. However, close inspection reveals the reason. The light square (B) in shade (shadow from the cylinder) has the same lightness as the dark square (A) in the light. Simples, and nothing to worry about. The colour illusions are more worrying, but that's another story.

 

Mark

[geogphotos]

6 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

That's the whole point it's an optical illusion. However, close inspection reveals the reason. The light square (B) in shade (shadow from the cylinder) has the same lightness as the dark square (A) in the light. Simples, and nothing to worry about. The colour illusions are more worrying, but that's another story.

 

Mark

 

Thanks Mark but this is all too esoteric for me. 

[wiskerke]

3 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I'm going to be pedantic here. Whilst I agree that the RAW image (pixel) data isn't affected by the camera's WB setting, the WB setting in use (and the camera's computed "Auto WB" of the scene) are recorded in the RAW file's meta-data. This is of no consequence, unless the RAW developer software is set to use the "as shot" WB, in which case the values stored in the RAW file's meta-data will alter the developed result.

 

Mark

 

 

 

True, but easy to see the difference in ACR as the 2 sliders would move between the two images. As shot means the original automation or calculation is carried over to the Raw

processing. In my example the large part of blue in one image vs the large part of green in the other image would certainly mean a different color balance. Ignoring the original WB and letting the Raw developer set the white balance for each image would have roughly the same effect. If you want (the advantages of) automation, but need to control the differences between two images, just use the Apply Previous Setting button in ACR. (But there are other solutions also, like with the filmstrip, or in Bridge.)

 

wim

 

[wiskerke]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

Square A and B don't look identical to me. One is lighter and one is darker.

 

What about the other squares are they all the same colour - and if so why does it look like a checker-board?

 

Not sure that this jiggerypockery needs to be something I think about taking stock photos - tell me otherwise please.

 

 

Have you watched that short youtube video? No tricks there.

And no you don't need to think about photography taking stock photos.

I'll would go even further and say I preferably wouldn't want to do any thinking taking photos. My camera should be in my hand like a pencil when drawing. One then would not think about drawing nor the pencil. Provided one knows how to draw. In both cases all the thinking should go into the subject and the final rendering.

The same with photography, until you encounter some problem like the OP has.

 

wim

[geogphotos]

8 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

Have you watched that short youtube video? No tricks there.

And no you don't need to think about photography taking stock photos.

I'll would go even further and say I preferably wouldn't want to do any thinking taking photos. My camera should be in my hand like a pencil when drawing. One then would not think about drawing nor the pencil. Provided one knows how to draw. In both cases all the thinking should go into the subject and the final rendering.

The same with photography, until you encounter some problem like the OP has.

 

wim

 

Yes, I saw the video with the woman moving the tile from place to place. But I wasn't really sure what it meant and what I should do with the information - that is why |I thought it something like a magic trick.

 

Wim, thanks very much for sharing your expertise in such a clear, helpful way. I very much appreciate and value your contributions here - as I am sure many others also do. 

[M.Chapman]

8 hours ago, wiskerke said:

No tricks there.

Mmmm...  No video trickery but presumably the checkerboard pattern prop has the illusion "baked in" (ie. it's not made of uniform squares of just 2 shades). That's my belief anyway. Very clever.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Sen1HTu5o

 

Mark

[MDM]

16 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

You are taking a reading between changing from horizontal to vertical. Which means that if you get a different outcome, you are changing the settings on your camera, or are letting your camera change the settings. So yes then you do get a different exposure.

Taking one reading, setting your camera manually, and not changing the setting between horizontal and vertical would mean you get the complete same result on film and in RAW.

(Oh and not only metering and exposure are two different things, also light metering and object metering are.)

 

 

wim

 

Just to be clear I don't meter in that way. I use spot metering in manual exposure mode and my horizontal and vertical settings would be identical. I was making a very simple if pedantic point in speculating about what the OP might or might not be doing based on his first post in which there was insufficient information. I have a pretty deep understanding of metering and exposure but the discussion has become lost in semantics and further obfuscated by all the other stuff which is indeed very interesting but not really relevant to the discussion.

 

The fact is that it was his auto white balance settings that led him to have to process his horizontal and vertical images differently as I speculated in my initial post. He presumably had As Shot set in his raw processing software. There is no need to look any further. It doesn't change the raw image of course but it does change his processing which is what he originally asked.

 

[MDM]

14 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I'm going to be pedantic here. Whilst I agree that the RAW image (pixel) data isn't affected by the camera's WB setting, the WB setting in use (and the camera's computed "Auto WB" of the scene) are recorded in the RAW file's meta-data. This is of no consequence, unless the RAW developer software is set to use the "as shot" WB, in which case the values stored in the RAW file's meta-data will alter the developed result.

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

This is true and pedantry is not a problem here as this whole discussion is extremely pedantic which is fine but I do believe it has been resolved. 

[wiskerke]

8 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

Yes, I saw the video with the woman moving the tile from place to place. But I wasn't really sure what it meant and what I should do with the information - that is why |I thought it something like a magic trick.

 

Wim, thanks very much for sharing your expertise in such a clear, helpful way. I very much appreciate and value your contributions here - as I am sure many others also do. 

 

Thank you!

To be clear I very seldom achieve doing anything without thinking.

- People around me may think differently about that. 😂

 

wim