Photo Manipulation

[BIGGUN]

It's actually in between the two. The reds in the first one are really close but the blue is a little more purple than it is under the grow lights. In the second pic the reds are way off and the blues are close to what they look like under the UVB lighting.

I think that makes sense. It makes sense to me because I wrote it.

Kevin

 

[DarkRapture]

It's actually in between the two. The reds in the first one are really close but the blue is a little more purple than it is under the grow lights. In the second pic the reds are way off and the blues are close to what they look like under the UVB lighting.

I think that makes sense. It makes sense to me because I wrote it.

Kevin

thank you! what you wrote makes enough sense that i can understand. lol

 

[dandes]

Cameras take photos on the basis that the light is balanced at 5500k(daylight). I would typically assume that most cham pics would be taken indoors in the vivarium under a fluorecent light source which has a color temp of about 3000k. This in essence would confuse the camera and create a much colder lookin photo and would wash out any color the cham would normally have to the naked eye. Color manipulation would need to be applied in the form of white balance amendment to make these photos look "natural" if that makes sense.
This is all down to the type of camera and individual setting used and file format in which the pic is taken. I personally use a RAW file format of which is processed through photoshop as standard and automatic adjustments are applied which would seem to break the terms of the comps.
I can see exactly where you are coming from when you talk about no color editing and boosting of colors etc to make the photo look more vibrant than it actually is.
where do we stand with the adjustments made to such file formats as RAW files? It's all quite technical stuff but i dont want to be breaking the rules of the comp by doing things i should not be doing unintentionally..