I`ve received notions that my wraps look even better in real life than on the photographs (which is great news), but there have been several recently with the reverse notion, that they`re less saturated/the colour is less rich than on photographs (which is not such great news).
I take my photographs indoors, in a quite dark home, and at this time of year, in incredibly dark environmental circumstances. I use a DSLR (digital Single Lens Reflection) semi-profesional camera. Because of the darkness, I use also a bit of additional light. I do not tweak the photographs afterwards, except for some usual "tidying" like cropping, rotating and evening the light levels, or sometimes, when they`re too dark, adjusting the exposure.
Now let me explain to you how a SLR camera works (and that is also a case of a digital one).
When taking a photograph with a SLR, user sees the image exactly as it is, without it being "altered" by any inside components of the camera. The quality of the image is then very good, as there is no (or almost no) noise to spoil it, which is the case with non SLR cameras. In simple compact cameras, the image goes through the 'wires" inside the device and is generated then (and spoiled) by its` components. The end result image is therefore flattened and full of noise, which makes the colours fade and depth of image is practically non existent.
With a SLR however, the image that a photographer sees, is reflected by a series of mirrors. Technically, mirror picks up the light and sends it through the condenser lens to the 5-sided prism (pentaprism) and then to the user's eye. When the photographer takes the picture the mirror swings upwards to let the light coming through the lens to be sent straight to the image sensor. This means the image is of better quality and ALSO shows the true colours of a photographed feature even though for the naked eye in bleak light it may not seem so.
I am not a professional photographer and I am not attempting to give you any supertechnical explanation, because in heart I think how photography works might be the work of little fairies sitting inside a camera rather than laws of physics and so on.
Of course, there`s always a question of having a properly calibrated computer monitor (which I admit, is my problem and I`m working on it-and I know from my IT friend that about 90% users have it done wrong).
So to those of you who are wondering how true the colours are on these photographs: they are pretty true, but be aware that very often human eye cannot pick them up as the camera sees themm(which is all due to the lighting conditions mostly). This is very often a case of especially the reds, purples and pinks (colours extremely hard to photograph) and certain greens. Be prepared that when you receive the wrap the colours you`ll see might be lighter/less saturated than on pictures, and this is a general rule, not only with my wraps.
I am not surprised when I see a wrap on FSOT or any babywearing forum (dyed by any of the dyeing artists, or even not dyed but weaved with coloured threads), which appears awfully faded compared to what I`ve seen on the dyer`s or manufacturer`s page, or in real life. I know the picture`s been taken with mostly a commercial digital compact camera or even with a mobile phone, and this tells me all.
As an example of how these things work, have a look at these photographs of Zara Pearl.
First two are indoors, with sligltly different ligh conditions (one in summer, one in winter):
an the same wrap with others:
and here`s Pearl photographed with a compact digital camera in Auto settings, in full (well, almost) sun in summertime:
But to make things less confusing, I am working on a new photography setup now,which I`ll be using from my next projects. Feel free to email me your thoughts about this issue if you feel you can add something to it or if you feel I`ve said something not right.
Also, part II of this topic will appear soon, when I`ve finally received a very controversial wrap which has caused all that stir.
No comments:
Post a Comment