Filter that can increase red saturation only???

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

07/25/2005 05:49:19 PM · #1

I am wondering because I have a Protanomaly, meaning I have a color deficiency where I dont see red as intensly as most people. Making some purples just apear as a shade of blue and it also make color correction difficult, mostly with skin tones. They end up looking too redish/purple if I correct them, but will look fine to me. Any way what I am getting at is if they make a filter that can intensify red then maybe I can make glasses that somewhat correct this. Thanks

Ty

Message edited by author 2005-07-26 11:44:05.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

07/25/2005 05:50:44 PM · #2

You can buy red tint filters. Maybe this is what you're after?

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

07/25/2005 06:10:41 PM · #3

Maybe I will try...

Ty

skylen

Nikon D200

07/25/2005 06:15:02 PM · #4

Originally posted by ty_roni:

I am wondering because I am Protanomal, meaning I have a color deficiency where I dont see red as intensly as most people.
...
Ty

Wow, I think I have the same think to some degree. For instance, red fire trucks don't "jump out at me" when they're in my field of vision, but a bright yellow truck will. I love bright yellow things, because they are by far the most intense eye-catching color to me, but it's hard to imagine what things look like to other people.

I've been told I'm slightly red-green colorblind, but I notice it mainly with just the reduction in attention-getting power of the color red.

Interesting.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

07/25/2005 07:16:52 PM · #5

Yup, I think a filter that cuts down on all other colors besides red (passes more red than other colors) might help. I do, however, have a question... assuming you set up your monitor to be well-calibrated, then you're seeing on the monitor what you would see in real life. If you adjust a photo so that it looks as it does in real life to you, then it should also appear correctly to others, assuming that effects of metamerism, brought on by your different color response, are not playing in (and this is a big assumption).

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/25/2005 07:38:57 PM · #6

Originally posted by kirbic:

I would think so as well, however when I do color correction, especially to skin tones they end up looking too red or violet to other people. So I usally have my Girlfriend do my color correcting. But what your saying is how I think it would work, but for some reason it doesnt. I have a friend who cuts lenses for glasses, so we are going to experiment with shades of red.

Ty

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/26/2005 07:06:38 AM · #7

Originally posted by kirbic:

I'm not sure, I'm trying to puzzle this one out logically, but it seems to me it would make more sense to take a different approach:

Consider that regardless of how the image displays on Ty's monitor (no matter how weirdly his monitor is calibrated), it shows up as it exists in digital "reality" on a properly-calibrated monitor. Therefore, if Ty were to take an image that his girlfriend had color-corrected properly and put it up on his monitor, and then if he adjusted his monitor so the image looked right to HIM, wouldn't he now have a monitor that was calibrated to his deficiency?

When he worked on his own photos, if they looked right on his monitor, to him, they'd look like crap to a "normal" eye on HIS monitor but would look fine on a normally-calibrated monitor.... Not only that, but presumably when he viewed other peoples' images (like for voting) his monitor woudl automatically skew them to reflect his deficiency and he coudl evaluate them more accurately.

Is there a flaw in this thinking?

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-07-26 07:09:06.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/26/2005 11:43:29 AM · #8

Originally posted by bear_music:

I think you are right, it should be possible for me to increase the red channel only on the monitor so that it compensates for my red weakness. I guess the trick would be figuring out how much I should increase the red channel. If I could create a test to see what degree of red deficiency my eyes have in a percentage, I could then apply the opposite to my monitor. Makes me wonder how differently everyone sees color.

Thanks to everyone for all the great insight so far...

Ty

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/26/2005 11:56:57 AM · #9

Originally posted by ty_roni:

Originally posted by bear_music:

I'm not sure, I'm trying to puzzle this one out logically, but it seems to me it would make more sense to take a different approach:

Consider that regardless of how the image displays on Ty's monitor (no matter how weirdly his monitor is calibrated), it shows up as it exists in digital "reality" on a properly-calibrated monitor. Therefore, if Ty were to take an image that his girlfriend had color-corrected properly and put it up on his monitor, and then if he adjusted his monitor so the image looked right to HIM, wouldn't he now have a monitor that was calibrated to his deficiency?

When he worked on his own photos, if they looked right on his monitor, to him, they'd look like crap to a "normal" eye on HIS monitor but would look fine on a normally-calibrated monitor.... Not only that, but presumably when he viewed other peoples' images (like for voting) his monitor woudl automatically skew them to reflect his deficiency and he coudl evaluate them more accurately.

Is there a flaw in this thinking?

Robt.

I think you are right, it should be possible for me to increase the red channel only on the monitor so that it compensates for my red weakness. I guess the trick would be figuring out how much I should increase the red channel. If I could create a test to see what degree of red deficiency my eyes have in a percentage, I could then apply the opposite to my monitor. Makes me wonder how differently everyone sees color.

Thanks to everyone for all the great insight so far...

Ty

If you took a color test chart (available in photography stores, and shot it in controlled light (for accurate white balance) and then opened that file and adjusted your monitor so it looks "right" to you, that should get you into the ballpark I'd think... In fact, now that I think of it, why not use an online color wheel to calibbrate from, as an experiment?

Open the following url and then calibrate your monitor so this looks natural. Make a note of the previous settings before changing them, though.

The load up an image your girlfriend has calibrated for you and see if it looks "normal" to you on the recalibrated monitor. Thsi would be interesting to see.

//www.saumag.edu/art/online_course_resources/2dimensionaldesign/2-D_Design_images/color_wheel/colorwheel_big.jpg

Robt.

mesmeraj

07/26/2005 12:01:02 PM · #10

my husband and mother both have colour deficiency problems. My hubby can't past the red-green eye colourblind est, and my mum the brown-orange one. I can see colours just fine - and yet both will argue with me until they are blue in the face about what colour a car etc is.
For some reason they have a hard time understanding that although it might seem blue to them, it is green to the majority of the population. They know they are colourblind, they are just absolutely in denial!!

Cripes, i just realised my kids are probably gonna only see in black and white with our combined genetics!!!

sabphoto

Samsung Galaxy S8/S8+

07/26/2005 12:08:21 PM · #11

Found some interesting stuff on a google search.

//www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/Ishihara.html

and you may want to see it this plug-in helps... //www.colorfield.com/insight/index.html

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/26/2005 12:26:44 PM · #12

Unfortunately the plugin is only available for mac... I tried to find any online info re: calibrating monitors to correct for deficiency; haven't suceeded yet.

R.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/26/2005 01:11:01 PM · #13

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by ty_roni:

Originally posted by bear_music:

I'm not sure, I'm trying to puzzle this one out logically, but it seems to me it would make more sense to take a different approach:

Consider that regardless of how the image displays on Ty's monitor (no matter how weirdly his monitor is calibrated), it shows up as it exists in digital "reality" on a properly-calibrated monitor. Therefore, if Ty were to take an image that his girlfriend had color-corrected properly and put it up on his monitor, and then if he adjusted his monitor so the image looked right to HIM, wouldn't he now have a monitor that was calibrated to his deficiency?

When he worked on his own photos, if they looked right on his monitor, to him, they'd look like crap to a "normal" eye on HIS monitor but would look fine on a normally-calibrated monitor.... Not only that, but presumably when he viewed other peoples' images (like for voting) his monitor woudl automatically skew them to reflect his deficiency and he coudl evaluate them more accurately.

Is there a flaw in this thinking?

Robt.

I think you are right, it should be possible for me to increase the red channel only on the monitor so that it compensates for my red weakness. I guess the trick would be figuring out how much I should increase the red channel. If I could create a test to see what degree of red deficiency my eyes have in a percentage, I could then apply the opposite to my monitor. Makes me wonder how differently everyone sees color.

Thanks to everyone for all the great insight so far...

Ty

If you took a color test chart (available in photography stores, and shot it in controlled light (for accurate white balance) and then opened that file and adjusted your monitor so it looks "right" to you, that should get you into the ballpark I'd think... In fact, now that I think of it, why not use an online color wheel to calibbrate from, as an experiment?

Open the following url and then calibrate your monitor so this looks natural. Make a note of the previous settings before changing them, though.

The load up an image your girlfriend has calibrated for you and see if it looks "normal" to you on the recalibrated monitor. Thsi would be interesting to see.

//www.saumag.edu/art/online_course_resources/2dimensionaldesign/2-D_Design_images/color_wheel/colorwheel_big.jpg

Robt.

I dont exactly know what "right" looks like. Right?, because the problem is that what looks normal to me doesnt to everyone else. So I dont think the color wheel can help me, but I think the color blind test chart will, because I can increase the red saturation until I can see the numbers that I cant normally see in it. right? I am trying to make sense of this with out confusing myself so let me know if I am not making sense.

--Wow I just looked at the link to the test circles I am worse that I thought I can only make out 2 of them. I dont get it, I can tell the difference between green and red no problem. But it says if I see the number 2 on the last one I am red-green color blind. I am so confused. This sucks especially for someone who want to eventually have a career in photography. I have a Mac at work so I will play with that plug-in.

-

Ty

Message edited by author 2005-07-26 13:11:47.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/26/2005 01:33:59 PM · #14

In my version of red-green colorblindness, I also can see "red" and "green" but seem to fail to pick up the red component of other colors, so it's hard to tell blue from purple, green from brown, lavender from periwinkle, etc.

From a long history of scanning and using uncalibrated monitors, I've learned to primarily rely on the numbers I see in Photoshop's Info pallette; I set one readout to grayscale, and the other to CMYK. From that, I know how "dark" any part of a photo is, and can usually figure out what color it is from analyzing the proportions of the component colors.