If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
In article kLw%c.284941$Oi.44231@fed1read04,
Mark M wrote: "Annika1980" wrote in message ... Mark M wrote: I use C1, and find it vastly suerior to Photoshop CS' RAW plug-in. The workflow is excellent, and the results are superior. I would disagree. OK...in all candor, I'm fairly new to CS's plug-in, so if you ask me again in a month, I may change my mind. It could be that I've just grown accustomed to the C1 and am more comfortable with it. The two have very different workflows. I came from the other side - was comfortable with CS before I tried C1 and couldn't really get into it. |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Mark M wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message .. . Mark M wrote: A major benefit to RAW is not only in exposure adjustments, but also color correction, including changing the "as-shot" white balance setting after the fact. Indoor lighting is FAR more problematic than outdoor, which means that shooting RAW indoors can be extremely beneficial. I can't count how many critical shots I've successfully rescued due ONLY to the fact that I shot them in RAW, and could then make corections. Wouldn't setting the white balance to tungsten (or Fluorescent) take care of most of that? (Not saying JPG is the way to go) Not necessarily. Most homes/indoor areas have a mixture of light sources (window light, bulbs, tubes, colored lamp shades), and reflections off of colored paint, carpets, etc. It's a real mess, unless there is a single over-powering light source that matches the pre-set WB. Coloration due to the environment *should* be caught in the photo, IMO. If the dominant light source is the window, then by all means shoot daylight and let the interior lighting colorize as it will... IOW, balance for the major, let the others color the scene (MO). Also--By going to JPEG, you are completely giving up any exposure rescue snip stuck with nothing more to do than try and make the best of a shot with lost info. (As I said: "Not saying JPG is the way to go" ) -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Mark M wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message .. . Mark M wrote: A major benefit to RAW is not only in exposure adjustments, but also color correction, including changing the "as-shot" white balance setting after the fact. Indoor lighting is FAR more problematic than outdoor, which means that shooting RAW indoors can be extremely beneficial. I can't count how many critical shots I've successfully rescued due ONLY to the fact that I shot them in RAW, and could then make corections. Wouldn't setting the white balance to tungsten (or Fluorescent) take care of most of that? (Not saying JPG is the way to go) Not necessarily. Most homes/indoor areas have a mixture of light sources (window light, bulbs, tubes, colored lamp shades), and reflections off of colored paint, carpets, etc. It's a real mess, unless there is a single over-powering light source that matches the pre-set WB. Coloration due to the environment *should* be caught in the photo, IMO. If the dominant light source is the window, then by all means shoot daylight and let the interior lighting colorize as it will... IOW, balance for the major, let the others color the scene (MO). Also--By going to JPEG, you are completely giving up any exposure rescue snip stuck with nothing more to do than try and make the best of a shot with lost info. (As I said: "Not saying JPG is the way to go" ) -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Fred McKenzie wrote:
I think it's fairly easy to test the exposure speed of the camera by taking a photo of something moving at a known speed. Bob- One "known speed" is a phonograph turntable. Using a piece of paper with a radius line drawn on it, you can test a leaf shutter's speed by measuring the angle subtended by the line in the resulting photo. (I used to use a black paper with a thin, white sliver of paper glued on.) However, a focal-plane shutter might produce funny results at speeds where both curtains were moving at the same time! Airplane photos show the moving slit with "bent" propellers, and some golf swing shots show it too... even so, if you know rps then you can verify the shutter speed. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
Fred McKenzie wrote:
I think it's fairly easy to test the exposure speed of the camera by taking a photo of something moving at a known speed. Bob- One "known speed" is a phonograph turntable. Using a piece of paper with a radius line drawn on it, you can test a leaf shutter's speed by measuring the angle subtended by the line in the resulting photo. (I used to use a black paper with a thin, white sliver of paper glued on.) However, a focal-plane shutter might produce funny results at speeds where both curtains were moving at the same time! Airplane photos show the moving slit with "bent" propellers, and some golf swing shots show it too... even so, if you know rps then you can verify the shutter speed. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Browne" wrote in message .. . Mark M wrote: "Alan Browne" wrote in message .. . Mark M wrote: A major benefit to RAW is not only in exposure adjustments, but also color correction, including changing the "as-shot" white balance setting after the fact. Indoor lighting is FAR more problematic than outdoor, which means that shooting RAW indoors can be extremely beneficial. I can't count how many critical shots I've successfully rescued due ONLY to the fact that I shot them in RAW, and could then make corections. Wouldn't setting the white balance to tungsten (or Fluorescent) take care of most of that? (Not saying JPG is the way to go) Not necessarily. Most homes/indoor areas have a mixture of light sources (window light, bulbs, tubes, colored lamp shades), and reflections off of colored paint, carpets, etc. It's a real mess, unless there is a single over-powering light source that matches the pre-set WB. Coloration due to the environment *should* be caught in the photo, IMO. If the dominant light source is the window, then by all means shoot daylight and let the interior lighting colorize as it will... IOW, balance for the major, let the others color the scene (MO). I'm not talking about window lighting. I'm talking about artificial light. Just because you shoot it "as lit" doesn't mean it will look in tthe photo as it seems to our eyes... Our eyes adjust for coloration, or at least fool us into adjusting to it. This is most evident under florescent lighting. It doesn't seem green to us while there, but the photos look horribly green. It's the same with mixed artificial lighting--especially notable in wedding photos--where what seemed like a white dress in person comes out dingy orange or muddy blue in photos. So... Catch the "environment" if you like, but be aware what we perceive as "the environment" in person rarely matches it's representation on film under anything other than daylight. |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
In message DBs0d.291034$Oi.141613@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote: So... Catch the "environment" if you like, but be aware what we perceive as "the environment" in person rarely matches it's representation on film under anything other than daylight. I find that only partially correcting white balance works well when you want to see what color the light was, but almost as subdued as it was in person. It all depends on what your intended subject is, I think; the object itself, the object as it was perceived, or the object as it actually is in its environment. -- John P Sheehy |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
In message DBs0d.291034$Oi.141613@fed1read04,
"Mark M" wrote: So... Catch the "environment" if you like, but be aware what we perceive as "the environment" in person rarely matches it's representation on film under anything other than daylight. I find that only partially correcting white balance works well when you want to see what color the light was, but almost as subdued as it was in person. It all depends on what your intended subject is, I think; the object itself, the object as it was perceived, or the object as it actually is in its environment. -- John P Sheehy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sunny 16 and what else? | Mike Henley | 35mm Photo Equipment | 32 | July 2nd 04 12:58 AM |
Insane new TSA rule for film inspection | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 94 | June 23rd 04 05:17 AM |
Rule of f16 | Trevor Longino | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 78 | June 2nd 04 08:13 PM |
Photo slide rule! | f/256 | Large Format Photography Equipment | 0 | January 15th 04 04:28 PM |
Rule of Thirds? | Toke Eskildsen | General Photography Techniques | 65 | January 11th 04 09:12 PM |