Truth in Filtering (1 Viewer)

It's possible that whatever phone was used is automatically applying filters in the background to adjust for dynamic enhancements and black levels and stuff. Just because Ben didn't specifically apply a filter doesn't mean his software didn't.
Skynet is here.

efb4ce40c388f101e30422ec423f6479.gif
 
[...]


The difference here is pretty stark... While I believe you when you say that the lefthand image is purely natural light, I can’t say that I’ve ever taken a photo of any of the several thousand chips I’ve sold where such a gigantic difference could be explained by lighting alone. At least not with a decent camera.

And I usually take my pics in natural light, in my kitchen, on a white countertop under a 10' tall giant picture window...

Idea: A PCF mat (like the one I also have, used in your lefthand photo) with a narrow b&w/color scale built into it.

View attachment 746868
My phone takes pictures in white balance auto, which I'm guessing reduces yellow lighting/darkness? The pictures were taken in very bright sunlight. No saturation changes were made.

Screenshot_20210802-125848_Gallery.jpg
 
Ah, yes, but the software (the camera app - or perhaps even a dedicated hardware chip) might be doing some shenanigans. For example, it's possible that Samsung's default camera app (or even a 3rd party one you might be using) takes multiple pictures, and combines them for best dynamic contrast (ie faux HDR). I know that Google Pixel phones use a specialized camera app that performs all sorts of software trickery.

The resulting file looks normal, but has been enhanced by the underlying app.
 
Ah, yes, but the software (the camera app - or perhaps even a dedicated hardware chip) might be doing some shenanigans. For example, it's possible that Samsung's default camera app (or even a 3rd party one you might be using) takes multiple pictures, and combines them for best dynamic contrast (ie faux HDR). I know that Google Pixel phones use a specialized camera app that performs all sorts of software trickery.

The resulting file looks normal, but has been enhanced by the underlying app.
I dont have any underlying apps, my phone is the cheapest hundred dollar smart phone from walmart lol it's not even a current model. It barely has enough storage space to run itself
 
I dont have any underlying apps, my phone is the cheapest hundred dollar smart phone from walmart lol it's not even a current model. It barely has enough storage space to run itself
Hah, Samsung phones do some tricks with the camera to push as much out of it is possible; you've got the Samsung Galaxy J7, so the camera can do some faux HDR. I am surprised, though; the above pictures are pretty damn vibrant for that level of phone. Kudos to you for some awesome photo skills there, Brie!
 
Hah, Samsung phones do some tricks with the camera to push as much out of it is possible; you've got the Samsung Galaxy J7, so the camera can do some faux HDR. I am surprised, though; the above pictures are pretty damn vibrant for that level of phone. Kudos to you for some awesome photo skills there, Brie!
Lol it usually takes close to an hour and 25 tries to get the right picture, most of the time they come out blurry. It's frustrating. I have an old basic camera as well that does a decent job
 
[...]


The difference here is pretty stark... While I believe you when you say that the lefthand image is purely natural light, I can’t say that I’ve ever taken a photo of any of the several thousand chips I’ve sold where such a gigantic difference could be explained by lighting alone. At least not with a decent camera.

And I usually take my pics in natural light, in my kitchen, on a white countertop under a 10' tall giant picture window...

Idea: A PCF mat (like the one I also have, used in your lefthand photo) with a narrow b&w/color scale built into it.

View attachment 746868
As with everything in this hobby I post actual facts. I have no control over how a camera decides to record a picture... I don't even know how to change any saturation stuff. I use a crappy old galaxy S7, it is a company phone... I open the camera and take a picture. Sure maybe it changes that to whatever it wants, no idea. But a Liar I absolutely am not!

This one was taken by me on my crappy phone
20210129_123329.jpg

And this one.
20210418_112221.jpg


No fancy high tech crap, just the right picture at the right time of day, with the right amount of light coming in the window. I assure you neither of us ever took any photography classes.
 
As with everything in this hobby I post actual facts. I have no control over how a camera decides to record a picture... I don't even know how to change any saturation stuff. I use a crappy old galaxy S7, it is a company phone... I open the camera and take a picture. Sure maybe it changes that to whatever it wants, no idea. But a Liar I absolutely am not!
This is exactly my point; to the end user, there's no evidence that any post-production is happening. To us, the image sensor is translating photons to bits 1-to-1. But with our modern phones (even the S7 :)), there could be software and/or hardware adjusting the picture (or even creating a composite/HDR). Because of this, people think that a photo might altered by the photographer, even when it wasn't.

tl;dr - the computers are taking over and adjust our pictures automatically.
 
Ben, no one said you were lying. I just don’t think supersaturated-by-late-evening-light pics gives a realistic impression of what chips will typically look like *except in that ideal and rare condition.*

Going back to the earlier example of the King’s Castles: I recently had a chance to check out a large collection of these at a friend’s house. We were looking at them indoors in a brightly sunlit, west-facing room around 5 pm. Unless there were batches of these made with totally different base colors, there is no way that many of the supersaturated pics of KCs I’ve seen here are anything but unrealistic, bordering on fantastical. I’d have to try very hard and wait weeks for the right sunset to photograph them that way without manipulation.

By contrast, there are chips which are naturally hot/saturated. An example is the Jack Detroit 1K Secondaries… You can take duller pics of these, but it takes work to undersell their “pop.” Here is a pic of JD1Kses in shadow, zero direct light (iPhone 12, unmanipulated by me). This is much duller than average, yet still pretty saturated:

5BEC6CF6-9637-406F-882B-D77A38DC0DD2.jpeg


My sense is that some sellers do try to make more ordinary base colors look like the very hottest shades in the Paulson library.
 
Last edited:
Same chips outdoor in sunlight, 5:30 pm. This pic makes them actually look more pumpkin orange, and less “radiant.”

3579A403-6B5C-4CBA-9739-2ECB504F102A.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Zero edits to either of these. Exact same photo. One uploaded directly to the forum and one uploaded with imgur

Edit: I'd say the 5s and 25s look closer to real life in the 2nd pic, but those hot pinks really look insane in the 2nd pic compared to real life and not sure why. The first pic doesn't do the hot pinks justice either though. One of those tough colors like blaze.

KSQFym1.jpg

7sQFc2y.jpg
 
Zero edits to either of these. Exact same photo. One uploaded directly to the forum and one uploaded with imgur

Edit: I'd say the 5s and 25s look closer to real life in the 2nd pic, but those hot pinks really look insane in the 2nd pic compared to real life and not sure why. The first pic doesn't do the hot pinks justice either though. One of those tough colors like blaze.

View attachment 747079
7sQFc2y.jpg
Can you remind me how you link? Are you hitting the image photo icon and then hitting the link icon and dropping the URL or are you using a basic html code?
 
I just want to raise again the issue of oversaturated chips as a non-trivial issue when it involves transactions.

My position has been that how one “processes” chip photos is a personal preference when posting pr0n. But it ceases to be a mere personal preference if a sale/trade/auction contains photos which significantly distort the actual appearance of the chips.

I’m really not trying to pick on anyone, and am going to leave names out of it. That said, here is a recent example of two different users posting the same chips in a sales thread:

1659967873923.png

1659967893852.png


The difference above cannot be explained just by lighting or operator error. One could easily mistake the base and spot colors of this chip if one relied only on the second image.

The first photo appears to be unfiltered, or maybe lightly bumped up. The second photo appears to have been massively oversaturated, unless the user’s camera is really bad or some extreme LED lighting was used. (I left out the chip at right, which in the sale thread appeared to be black, but a commenter pointed out is in fact brown. That suggests to me that the image’s contrast was bumped up in addition to saturation.)

Now, again... It is understandable that not everyone is a professional photographer, or has studied color theory. People take bad photos all the time without any intent to exaggerate or mislead. Individuals also have different monitor settings, and even different eyesight. So the same pic can look different to you and me. There is even sometimes slight differences in the same chips depending on how they’ve been cleaned (or not), oiled (or not), etc.

All that said, the vast majority of amateur photos tend to be more washed out and drab than reality, not more saturated and contrast-y.

As for non-sale photos... Per above, of course people are free to represent their chips however they like. Go nuts with the filters if you must. The problem comes when researching chips to collect. When saturation and contrast are all over the map, it becomes necessary to collect multiple images of the same chip to get a sense of how it is actually going to appear in person. In some cases I’ve had to ask specifically about the color names, and have a sample set on hand to get an idea of what the base and spots will really look like.

(P.S. There are even sometimes variations in samples sets, so this is always going to be an inexact science. For this chipper, it’s best for the community to reduce the number of variables and uncertainty.)
 
Last edited:
Zero edits to either of these. Exact same photo. One uploaded directly to the forum and one uploaded with imgur

Edit: I'd say the 5s and 25s look closer to real life in the 2nd pic, but those hot pinks really look insane in the 2nd pic compared to real life and not sure why. The first pic doesn't do the hot pinks justice either though. One of those tough colors like blaze.

View attachment 747079
7sQFc2y.jpg
I’d wager the top photo of the fitz is being hit by what I demonstrated above^ The fitz t5 is blaze.
I just want to raise again the issue of oversaturated chips as a non-trivial issue when it involves transactions.

My position has been that how one “processes” chip photos is a personal preference when posting pr0n. But it ceases to be a mere personal preference if a sale/trade/auction contains photos which significantly distort the actual appearance of the chips.

I’m really not trying to pick on anyone, and am going to leave names out of it. That said, here is a recent example of two different users posting the same chips in a sales thread:

View attachment 963512
View attachment 963513

The difference above cannot be explained just by lighting or operator error. One could easily mistake the base and spot colors of this chip if one relied only on the second image.

The first photo appears to be unfiltered, or maybe lightly bumped up. The second photo appears to have been massively oversaturated, unless the user’s camera is really bad or some extreme LED lighting was used. (I left out the chip at right, which in the sale thread appeared to be black, but a commenter pointed out is in fact brown. That suggests to me that the image’s contrast was bumped up in addition to saturation.)

Now, again... It is understandable that not everyone is a professional photographer, or has studied color theory. People take bad photos all the time without any intent to exaggerate or mislead. Individuals also have different monitor settings, and even different eyesight. So the same pic can look different to you and me. There is even sometimes slight differences in the same chips depending on how they’ve been cleaned (or not), oiled (or not), etc.

All that said, the vast majority of amateur photos tend to be more washed out and drab than reality, not more saturated and contrast-y.

As for non-sale photos... Per above, of course people are free to represent their chips however they like. Go nuts with the filters if you must. The problem comes when researching chips to collect. When saturation and contrast are all over the map, it becomes necessary to collect multiple images of the same chip to get a sense of how it is actually going to appear in person. In some cases it becomes necessary to ask specifically about the base color and have a sample set on hand to see what it really looks like.

(P.S. There are even sometimes variations in samples sets, so of course this is always going to be an inexact science. This chipper just likes to reduce the number of variables and uncertainty.)
 
I’d wager the top photo of the fitz is being hit by what I demonstrated above^ The fitz t5 is blaze.

Yeah, I own some pretty hot blaze chips. I would have to really work to get the color to look like either pic. So I’d love to see a third photo of the same chip, if anyone has one. But the second photo does still appear to have been heavily manipulated (leaving aside the blur), given the edgespot differences and the black/brown issue.
 
It's tough to say, maybe because the pink chip in your pics is a solid, but your example appears subtle compared to @Taghkanic example. By my eyes and my monitor of course.
Oh wow, monitors do vary greatly for sure. Massive difference in the others too, but not as much as the pink. The colors are washed out a bit and almost hazy. The top fitz pic has that same look.
Yeah, I own some pretty hot blaze chips. I would have to really work to get the color to look like either pic. So I’d love to see a third photo of the same chip, if anyone has one. But the second photo does still appear to have been heavily manipulated (leaving aside the blur), given the edgespot differences and the black/brown issue.
This isn’t the first time brown/black has been an “issue” for these chips and I don’t think it’s because of the photos. It’s not a regular brown. Kinda like Paulson grape it’s very very dark and gets mistaken often.

There is a third photo in that thread of the T5 that is more in between.

Edit: added pic

b2713ea0-bb9c-4b2c-844a-cdc976bc093b-jpeg.963353
 
6pa6ct.jpg

More of a general than specific image post, but this is all I see when a chip image is edited to absurdity. I am not sure if people posting such images have issues with their sight and are trying to correct what they perceive is a massive difference between in-person and online, but it is blatantly obvious when it happens. If pictures are posted via Imgur, there is no need for the clown show.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom