What did you do to compare color spectral density? Are you just talking RGB histograms? Both images are so poorly exposed from a detail retention perspective (there is no detail in most of the water due to overexposure) that it is hard for me to say with confidence that the drastic change in the local coloration is due to increased sediment. It probably is sediment given the context, so I’m probably suffering from a little bias here! Just curious what you actually did to come to your confident conclusion.
>>Just curious what you actually did to come to your confident conclusion.<<
To do any accurate analysis you need a very high resolution system DPI & high color true 32 bit per pixel resolution (and a very large display).
This is very clear on my system. There are may high resolution image analysis controls to identify any slight influences that could result in an artificial change. Thus, using precision sliding “real time display control” of exposure, contrast, saturation, temperature, tint, sepia, and sharpness, you see if there are any combinations that can cross match ALL of the colors in each image to transition it to a copy of the other.
There is a “real time spectral display” in the software to also reveal the composite high resolution result. IN all cases of testing, there was no “cross match” combinational condition. So the only way this could be artificial is if the original camera system had a non-linear response to only certain areas of the CCD bias & color translation. This is equivalent to saying precise areas of the camera CCD hi-def pixel array equally altered itself in perfect alignment to the flow of the water (sections) - but left the rest of the hi-def pixel array unaltered.
Highly unlikely.