ThePortForum.com

Some of our reviews of tastings include photographs of Port in glasses (e.g., Croft on 29^th October 2014, Ramos Pinto on 21^st October 2014, 1997s on 16^th June 2014, Blind 1958s on 3^rd June 2014).

There is a cautionary tale in an arstechnica review of the Nexus 6, the review comparing the cameras of different phones and concluding that there is “a lot of variation in the saturation between each device”.

jdaw1 wrote:...there is “a lot of variation in the saturation between each device”.

Does the level of saturation depend on how full the glass was when the phone was dropped into it?

AHB wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:...there is “a lot of variation in the saturation between each device”.

Does the level of saturation depend on how full the glass was when the phone was dropped into it?

Also depends on how long the phone was left in said wine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkz. U

That conversation quickly fell apart. Whole thread to M.D.?

Attempting to steer a course back to the topic in hand… I often feel that the too-harsh flash in some photographs in the Reviews section gives little information about the colour / opacity of the juice in the glasses. It would be so much better if we had a light, portable studio lighting solution that could fit in a carrier bag, of course! Failing this, some sort of light that was independent of the camera / phone itself would be an advantage.

Daniel: you have expertise. When you and I are next at the same tasting, would you take the photographs, and show me the camera settings you thought best for the task?

Happy to try.

I am not sure the camera or its settings is going to solve all problems. In general: natural light and neutral background (in terms of pattern and colour temp) good, flash and busy or non-neutral background bad.

There are portable studios available but i'm afraid you get what you pay for and they'll always be too small for easy use.

PopulusTremula wrote:I am not sure the camera or its settings is going to solve all problems. In general: natural light and neutral background (in terms of pattern and colour temp) good, flash and busy or non-neutral background bad.

There are portable studios available but i'm afraid you get what you pay for and they'll always be too small for easy use.

Let’s be realistic. We are having a tasting. Most bottles and most people arrive. We start. An hour later the last man and his bottles arrive. We can’t then rearrange everything on the table for a photograph. We have to work with portable kit that can be used in situ by people who have already started drinking.

djewesbury wrote:the too-harsh flash in some photographs in the Reviews section gives little information about the colour / opacity of the juice in the glasses.

PopulusTremula wrote:… flash … bad.

Two photographs from the Croft tasting on 29^th October 2014, one with flash, one without.


For obvious reasons I didn’t use the no-flash photograph in the review thread,

jdaw1 wrote:Let’s be realistic.

Why? While I think Daniel's suggestion of a portable studio sounds impossible and ridiculous I do not think we should limit ourselves in such a way, particularly in the week that we have landed on a comet (not the port forum, I mean those science peeps).

LGTrotter wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:Let’s be realistic.

Why? While I think Daniel's suggestion of a portable studio sounds impossible and ridiculous I do not think we should limit ourselves in such a way, particularly in the week that we have landed on a comet (not the port forum, I mean those science peeps).

'Portable studio' simply = a flashlight that you can bounce that maybe has a diffuser. Even just a small square of drafting film / tracing paper can make a difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps at the Martinez we can try taking the same photo a few different ways?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:Let’s be realistic.

Why? While I think Daniel's suggestion of a portable studio sounds impossible and ridiculous I do not think we should limit ourselves in such a way, particularly in the week that we have landed on a comet (not the port forum, I mean those science peeps).

'Portable studio' simply = a flashlight that you can bounce that maybe has a diffuser. Even just a small square of drafting film / tracing paper can make a difference.

Sure. You seem to have a plan. If it doesn’t make any of my glasses bounce half a mile, nor leave any sideways in the dark under a cliff, we can try.

At the risk of sounding like I'm offering a ridiculous suggestion when I'm not trying to, this thread has me thinking back to the lake water quality surveys I volunteered to participate in when I was a kid. To test turbidity (effectively opacity), they would put a black and white disk on a rope and basically see how far down you could send it off the side of the boat until you couldn't see it anymore. I wonder if you wouldn't end up with more usable data to enter into the tasting record if you didn't establish scales of opacity and color with examples on a reference sheet (similar to what you might see in a pool chemical test kit), and then use a uniform object to "dunk" in a standard glass of port to judge at each tasting, with the results noted in the notes. This would allow you to forego efforts to attempt to analyze port via picture after the fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkz. U

CaliforniaBrad wrote:To test turbidity (effectively opacity), they would put a black and white disk on a rope and basically see how far down you could send it off the side of the boat until you couldn't see it anymore.

We tried something similar as seen through the glass (see Quantifying opacity in TNs, in turn linking to the thread entitled Software that makes placemats).

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=175&start=324]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:To help those unwilling to open a PDF:

(That PDF = www.jdawiseman.com/2012/201201_opacity_test.pdf.)

Dunking into the glass has multiple problems, one of which would be keeping constant the gap from edge of glass to dunked thing.

I was thinking said object would be viewed top down with a standard amount of liquid on top of it, but obviously that still presents issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkz. U

Scientific American reports: Mystery of Scotch Whisky Rings Solved. There is a slide show of photographs.