My eyes are failing or is the end nigh

[mikemeister_admin]

I wish to share a thought that has been ticking away for a wee while now.

Over the last week or two I have taken quite a lot of photos and only found it necessary to post-process a couple of them.
I think the quality of the cameras have increased enough that unless it is a special image, or an awkward situation, I can accept them straight out of the camera.
I attach an example - please feel free to enhance it to show me that my assumption is false (and it is time I re-took the course!). 
If it is true then the market for PS and post-processing is going to shrink in the coming years.
Zog

[ggroess]

I think we should all show Zog that the world is not coming to an end yet...
I can see some room here to make this a better image...

Greg

[ggroess]

Chris,

Is this any better?
I opened the shadows a bit and made the yellows a bit stronger...
Greg

[leeharper_admin]

Greg,

Your correction looks great ;)

I loved the way you'd made the rose look, but thought that the background wasn't quite right, so I cheated - I used your correction as a starting point. I've just darkened and desaturated the background a touch, to separate the rose from the background a bit more.

Looking at the two versions side by side, yours looks more realistic than mine; I've gone for a slightly more dramatic look.

Will cameras eventually be able to take photographs that look completely natural? I'm sure that they will. Will cameras be able to take photographs that look like what we saw? Perhaps. Will they be able to create images that encapsulate how we felt? No, I don't think so. Whether or not the camera will be able to create an image that is to your satisfaction without post-processing depends - I believe - on why you took the picture; it depends, essentially, upon whether the image is a record of an event, or a record of an emotional response.

Lovely picture Chris  :)

Lee.

[mikemeister_admin]

Wonderful - the wonders of JPEG compression render my version practically indistinguishable from Greg's!

I've pushed what I did a little more (so hopefully you can make out a difference), and I've created a comparison image (my correction on the left, Greg's on the right).

The wonders of the interweb... ::)

[ggroess]

Very subtle Lee....

The intent is very important in this discussion. 
I tend to work from an emotional level when it comes to images. 

I want to re-create as much of the detail and scene as I can. 
I bring my intuition and memory colors into it and try to make it as vibrant as possible without going over the top. 

Greg

[mikemeister_admin]

Thank you guys - let me put my foot in it (normal behavour!)

I asked my wife which she preferred and the answer was...
Greg's on a CRT screen and the Original on a LCD screen!

For me the correction to lighten the outer petals, although increasing the contrast, blows out the beautify shade of pink.  The whole rose is pink and that is what I saw.  To me this was a picture of colour.  The Hue angle has only shifted a couple of degrees or so, but it make a tremendous difference as the luminosity increases.

The original was Lab L80 (in the outer petals), but you have moved it to L90 - all the Zones have moved as I have shown using Koren's 9 zones.

Very interesting - thank you both

[ggroess]

Chris,
Upon Further review and a better monitor....

I took your concerns into account...

Greg

[mikemeister_admin]

Yes Greg a much nicer tonal range, but now the rich inner colour is lost.

To me this is one of those cases where getting the B&W tones correct does improve the image.  If I put "gg1" over the original in luminosity blend mode, the colours are still lost at the highlight end and even using a L channel mask during Saturation boost does not completely help because of loosing the very fine detail in the light petals.

I attach a couple of comparisons between your 2 versions and the original

There is room for improvement - and horrors upon horrors - using Picasa's "I'm Feeling Lucky" button makes a subtle difference that does not blow colour or tones!  But I do not think it is worth the effort for this image which is 96% (?) there in the first place.

So I wonder if the "end is nigh" is right IF cameras could consistently do this.

[mikemeister_admin]

I've been looking at this image in a little more detail regarding the colour and tonal values.

As well as variations in the physical colour of the petals, there is also the added reflected colour from one petal onto another, making the colour richer as we travel towards the centre.

So the painters Munsell/Reilly model fails because of this added reflection, but the Zones (rendered in Lab mode) seem a closer match.

This has nought to do with post-processing rules, but highlights the problems with trying to change an image and still remain true and realistic.  If we allow artistic licence and try and add emotion to convey a message, it makes this much harder.

I've attached a stationary snapshot of the examination, which is probably moderately meaningless, but it is an area that interests me, so I thought I would share it.  I've included a Munsell swatch of the rough colour to show our perception of the 5R hues (including out-of-gamut ones).

I reckon we have flogged this poor rose to death!