Nikon D700 / D7000 Blue Rendering

[Xjacktar]

This is not a serious problem for me, but I notice occasionally that both of these cameras do not seem to render blue perfectly. Every year at some point in spring I photograph a bluebell or two. Before I take the photo, I look at the flower and think 'that is blue, really blue, not purple or violet'; but when I process the image, it appearas with a slight purplish cast to it.

I usually photograph with WB set at Auto (gasp!) but I feel that it rarely lets me down. Occasionally I tweak the WB in ViewNX2. When I do this to try and retrieve the blue of the flower, I find the only settings which give me true blue also throw out everthing else in the image, with blue-green grass and leaves etc.

Anyone else see this, or am I doing something wrong ?

PS: Forgot to say, blue skies render perfectly.

 

[Romany]

Ive a D700 and have never seen or heard of this..check the sub menue on the WB set up, it maybe needs adjusting, I shoot WB cloudy 90% of the time, with a few tweaks on the sub menue, and like I say, never seen this happening

 

[Xjacktar]

Bill, I have fiddled with WB, and it doesn't do the trick. As I understand it, WB is just colour temperature, one variable.
I find that I can 'fix' it to some extent by tweaking the Blue hue in PSE 9. As I say, blue skies look perfect, so I think my monitor is OK. Also, the blue borders of Windows XP look very blue on screen. Not a biggie, I will live with it.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Shot in RAW and adjust it post shoot to whatever you want. Colour balance is subjective anyway. Sometimes you want it warmer, sometimes not... it doesn't really matter if you shoot RAW although as you say, it will effect other colours when you get the bluebells correct. Still best to shoot RAW though.

I read something somewhere though about UV radiation from bluebells... can't think for the life of me where it was now. It makes sense though... a few months ago I did a fashion shoot using black light (UV) and the colour rendition was awful. The UV light didn't look like it should at all.. it was more pink than it was in reality.

 

[Nikon_Nick]

Shot in RAW and adjust it post shoot to whatever you want. Colour balance is subjective anyway. Sometimes you want it warmer, sometimes not... it doesn't really matter if you shoot RAW although as you say, it will effect other colours when you get the bluebells correct. Still best to shoot RAW though.

I read something somewhere though about UV radiation from bluebells... can't think for the life of me where it was now. It makes sense though... a few months ago I did a fashion shoot using black light (UV) and the colour rendition was awful. The UV light didn't look like it should at all.. it was more pink than it was in reality.

Like you, I also have seen something about this. I think it was on another forum ( non professional photographer. ...or similar), where someone said in a thread that they couldn't get bluebells blue. Another member came back with some scientific explanation regarding UV.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Yeah.. it all stacks up now. I've shot UV lighting before on film and it rendered absolutely fine. On digital, it was pink. Most digital cameras have UV filters over the sensors, so if we perceive them as more blue because of reflected UV, then the camera will filter that out.

 

[Xjacktar]

David, for the last 4+ years I always shoot in RAW. Your comments about UV are interesting though.

I wonder if a UV filter would improve the blues, or even make them more purple. I think I might have a UV filter or two on my old Canon FD lenses; I could always hold it in front of the lens if it doesn't fit.
I'll let you know how it goes.

Thanks for the input David and Nick.

 

[Xjacktar]

David, I posted before I saw your last.

Looks like I'm stuck with it. It's always those blues which look intensively blue the eye too. Pity digital doesn't capture it.

Nick, I realise too that you were the first to bring up UV.

Over and out.