送交者: Passer-By-From-Texas 于 April 04, 2010 08:43:41:
回答: 看你上来，就回在这儿——color change的原因找到了。 由 三期四切 于 April 03, 2010 23:28:47:
Thank you for re-posting your pictures with exif data. Let me guess your question.
In your previous request, you claimed different color of the same picture displaying in different programs (software). Here you seem to believe there is color difference from picture being processed (adding border) from those "raw".
I would assume that you might be referring "resolution" instead of "color". Here are my thoughts:
(1) your new posts show quite similar colors to their previous ones with border in my monitors but they seem to be "brighter" and "vivid" - this is the key word you used and it indicates the issue I'll talk about more below.
(2) your new posts contain exif data but your old ones seemed to have been stripped. My experience tells me that if I'm working on pictures in software like PS, it won't strip off exif info except I purposely decide to do so. After adding borders, particularly being stripped the exif info "automatically" due to using other less sophisticated software (for an extreme example is to use Microsoft Paint), the picture is dramatically degraded in quality. This quality is about resolution but not color in the traditional term.
(3) JPEG format degrades picture quality every time you save it, e.g. if you converted your Canon RAW to jpeg, it degraded the quality a tiny little bit. Then if you worked on this jpeg, either modifying or adding borders, and then saved it again, another round of JPEG compressing, it dropped off some information. Worse though, if you had done more than once due to new modification being added, the JPEG compressing and info loss became further severe. The end result made you feel more noticeable difference.
To my knowledge, when you see a picture "vivid", it usually indicates the picture has higher bits of representing colors. This is the major difference that we can usually see between the pictures from a lower leveled point-n-shoot camera which uses 8- to 10-bit color and a great DSLR such as Canon 5D Mk II (or similar counterparts in Nikon) which uses 12- to 14-bit color.
In PS, on a same single picture, if we work with 16-bit (or higher) and save it in this mode. Then before closing it, change the bit to 8 under mode, and save it in another file. For a picture with subtle colors, these two versions displaying at the same will show noticeable difference in terms of the vividness.
Another experiment you may want to try: open a newly converted jpeg picture in PS and save it again in another filename in jpeg format again but this time choose quality level 10 or lower. Then open it again, save it in a new filename with choosing quality level 10 or lower. If you have time, do it one more time. Then open the very first one and this last one in the same monitor, I bet the last one is the least vivid one. Such an experiment can yield even more observable changes in the result, if you create new jpeg version using ACDSee or less sophisticaged editing software.
Finally, I'm greatly impressed with your 5DMkII with the 180 mm macro lens. The circle of confusion on one of your posts reaches to 0.005 mm. This is first time I saw such a small CoC, which means far greater sharpness in imaging capability. This gives your shooting with f/16 aperture a depth of field only about 1 cm! What an amazing device Canon has brought to the market.
When I was first time working with DSLR, I realized that sometimes, or more occassionally, the higher resolution (by having greater bits and large photosite of the sensor), the more frustration it can bring to the camera operator - we are easily exposing our errors or mistakes in operating the equipment. For example, in old days with less sophisticately cameras, our problem in focusing or controlling lighting, it might not be easily seeing in the final pictures, but now, all the problems become 'naked' :)
Thank you again for the sharing and I love to communicate with you.