If we need filters for a camera to see what we see under blue LEDs, is the image processor the problem?

[looselyhuman]

This is just a random thought. My camera does pretty well under my T5s, when I can be bothered to fish it out if my closet

I'm making a few under-educated assumptions here..

It seems to me that a camera lens has always been able to capture light and reproduce it pretty faithfully on film or digital capture. LEDs (and to a lesser extent, blue halides and T5s) are a pretty big exception.

Why is this? The lens is capturing and sending all available light, right? The issue is the image processor?

I've never seen a photo of an LED reef from an analog SLR on photo stock, but my suspicion is that it wouldn't have this issue.

People get around this with filters, which change the colors by limiting light. This has obvious fidelity issues.

So I'm wondering if this is basically a camera software issue? Or is it maybe the hardware (optical sensor)?

Anyway, it seems like the right solution, from an engineering perspective, would be to fix the image processing in the camera, basically a blue LED or reef mode.

I'm surprised it hasn't been done.

(Or, maybe it's our eyes/optic nerves that are the issue.)

 

[Nano sapiens]

I'll take a stab at this...

Proper reef aquarium lighting give off a great deal of blue light to benefit the zooxanthellae living inside of the photosynthetic corals.

So while we may see a LED lit aquarium as 'white and bright' due to the fact that human eyes are much more sensitive to any greens, oranges, etc. that are present (warmer colors) than violet and blues, the camera is seeing 'what is really there'...and that is a lot of actinic/blue.

When a camera takes a picture outside on a clear sunny day around noon (for example), the photo looks 'true to life' since the light field is much more balanced between all the colors of the visible spectrum.

 

[looselyhuman]

So while we may see a LED lit aquarium as 'white and bright' due to the fact that human eyes are much more sensitive to any greens, oranges, etc. that are present (warmer colors) than violet and blues, the camera is seeing 'what is really there'...and that is a lot of actinic/blue.

That sounds right.

... So, our eyes are interpreting the overly blue light in a certain unrealistic way... I think the fact that the camera doesn't interpret it the same way is a bug though. The reason a camera exists is to capture images for human eyes.

I think Canon could make a killing selling a $2000 "reef-enabled" DSLR.

 

[anthonymckay]

These two stack exchange threads seem to be pretty applicable. From my understanding, the short answer seems to be that cameras digital sensors are less sensitive to blue light (which is also true of the human eye), and as a result blue channels are amplified. This is fine for the vast majority of photography as most scene illumination is deficient of blue light (sunlight, incandescent bulbs, etc). But for reefs mostly lit by blue LEDs, it results in a photo where the blue channel is massively oversaturated.

Why are sensors less sensitive to blue light?

This is a followup question to Why is the blue channel the noisiest?. The simple answer to that question is that sensors are less sensitive to blue, and therefore require more amplification, which

photo.stackexchange.com

Why is the blue channel the noisiest?

It is widely observed that the blue channel in digital cameras is the noisiest. I've certainly noticed that with my camera. Why is this? Is it an artifact of some particular technology (e.g. Bayer...

photo.stackexchange.com

As for Canon selling a $2000 reef-enabled dlsr... I would guess that the relative market of people who would buy that is VERY tiny (as in likely a fraction of a percent) compared to their overall market. The sale of such a camera likely wouldn't move the needle at all on their revenue.

 

[mdb_talon]

While I don't know of any cameras offering a "reef mode" any decent one(including most modern smartphones) let's you adjust the white balance which basically let's you do your own "reef mode".

 

[maroun.c]

Not really into the physics of cameras and how they interpret and process things but the issue is mainly in the camera interpreting a shade of grey as baseline and then reprocessing everything around that, 18% grey sheet photographers take a pic of under lights they're using to correct for white balance in post processing. We can of course tweak that level (white balance setting on ur camera: auto, cloudy, tungsten, fluorescent... which tells the camera that, this gray will look more blue or yellow based on choice of preset white balance used. Unfortunately none of the presets available with most cameras allows for this severe blue correction.
I've shot with led lights for people photography that had a blue tint for some reason and I was able to correct white balance via a user white balance correction in camera, yet as tank lighting color varies with time of day that would make it tricky and its best to correct in post processing.
I feel go pro action cameras have a much better white balance correction for blue than our DSLRs and not sure if its because they were made with underwater photography in mind.

 

[adittam]

That sounds right.

... So, our eyes are interpreting the overly blue light in a certain unrealistic way... I think the fact that the camera doesn't interpret it the same way is a bug though. The reason a camera exists is to capture images for human eyes.

I think Canon could make a killing selling a $2000 "reef-enabled" DSLR.

While I don't know of any cameras offering a "reef mode" any decent one(including most modern smartphones) let's you adjust the white balance which basically let's you do your own "reef mode".

All dSLR's already have "reef mode". It's also known as shooting in RAW, so you can have as much leeway as possible to adjust the white balance from what the camera "thinks" is correct to what your eyes are seeing. RAW files preserve 100% of the data collected by the camera's sensor, whereas JPEGs and other photo file formats use compression to makes the file sizes smaller, and data is lost during the compression.

 

[maroun.c]

As for SLRs shooting under blue lights , there is no wb correction in camera here its a simple opening of the diaphragm that allows light to hit the film. Not sure if there was at any stage films meant for shooting under light tints.... yet photographers were talented in using filters on the lens to correct for white balance and also used gel filters on their flashes to match lighting they were in, presume slrs would struggle a lot with shooting under tank less, I'm not sure if they could manipulate colors while processing the negatives, I know they could manipulate exposure but no idea about colors unless negatives were scanned for printing and color correction done at that stage before print. Yet then I'd doubt the photo technician at the lab would know how much blue you would really want in your final shots. Would be interesting to try a few shots abd send them to processing and see how the pics come out. Use of filters would also be tricky as it also casts a shade of orange or yellow on the shots .

 

[PedroYoung]

That sounds right.

... So, our eyes are interpreting the overly blue light in a certain unrealistic way... I think the fact that the camera doesn't interpret it the same way is a bug though. The reason a camera exists is to capture images for human eyes.

I think Canon could make a killing selling a $2000 "reef-enabled" DSLR.

saw a news story saying that Nikon and Canon are both getting out of the DSLR markets, no more enhancements or new products. Iphone killed the DSLR (like video killed the radio star).

 

[anthonymckay]

saw a news story saying that Nikon and Canon are both getting out of the DSLR markets, no more enhancements or new products. Iphone killed the DSLR (like video killed the radio star).

They are stopping the development of DSLR's because technological advancements has made their mirrorless cameras perform as well or surpass the abilities of DSLRs. Has nothing to do with the iPhone, lol. You'll still be able to buy pro grade cameras from both manufacturers, they just wont have a physically moving mirror inside them. No moving parts = less repair overhead costs for manufacturers.

Edit: here's a great explanation of the differences https://www.techradar.com/news/mirrorless-vs-dslr-cameras