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 |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Shelley wrote:
But then, you should have understood what Stacey was getting at in the post that you objected to. I should? Stacey said something like "and then I get the WB right." The whole point I was making it at least to me it seems simple enough to set a WB preset that fits what I'm shooting to get a good default WB setting in the RAW converter software. Doing this, so far I've hit the color balance almost perfect on every shot and do zero color corrections in software. Using auto WB, you're going to get weird results depending on the ambient lighting and will -have- to do guestimate WB adjustments in post. I prefer to do it while I'm shooting and like I said elsewhere, shoot a sunset at daylight WB and you'll see the reds like they were instead of the auto WB trying to compensate, shift the default WB blue and then you have to try to figure out what WB should have been used. You can always move it around in post if you want to either way, I just like having a constant baseline that shows what was there. Seems more like film to me this way rather than the WB moving all over the place in auto mode. Yes I do understand the "in camera" WB doesn't have a perminate effect on a RAW image like it does on a jpeg, but it does set the default WB to something more useable than auto does and will probably save a step in post on trying to set it right. -- Stacey |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Shelley wrote:
But then, you should have understood what Stacey was getting at in the post that you objected to. I should? Stacey said something like "and then I get the WB right." The whole point I was making it at least to me it seems simple enough to set a WB preset that fits what I'm shooting to get a good default WB setting in the RAW converter software. Doing this, so far I've hit the color balance almost perfect on every shot and do zero color corrections in software. Using auto WB, you're going to get weird results depending on the ambient lighting and will -have- to do guestimate WB adjustments in post. I prefer to do it while I'm shooting and like I said elsewhere, shoot a sunset at daylight WB and you'll see the reds like they were instead of the auto WB trying to compensate, shift the default WB blue and then you have to try to figure out what WB should have been used. You can always move it around in post if you want to either way, I just like having a constant baseline that shows what was there. Seems more like film to me this way rather than the WB moving all over the place in auto mode. Yes I do understand the "in camera" WB doesn't have a perminate effect on a RAW image like it does on a jpeg, but it does set the default WB to something more useable than auto does and will probably save a step in post on trying to set it right. -- Stacey |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
rafe bustin wrote:
Fine. Really. I'm probably just disconcerted from hearing Stacey sing the praises of her new E300. Who knew? Freaked you out huh? :-) I'm loving the DOF this thing has in macro shooting, the 50 F2 macro lens is a killer! :-) -- Stacey |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
rafe bustin wrote:
Fine. Really. I'm probably just disconcerted from hearing Stacey sing the praises of her new E300. Who knew? Freaked you out huh? :-) I'm loving the DOF this thing has in macro shooting, the 50 F2 macro lens is a killer! :-) -- Stacey |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
I'm probably just
disconcerted from hearing Stacey sing the praises of her new E300. Who knew? Well I can certainly understand that, I'm in a state of shock myself. Who could possibly have predicted it would be Stacey participating in a digital camera thread and telling us what a hassle film is. "rafe bustin" wrote in message ... On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 04:05:35 GMT, "Shelley" wrote: But then, you should have understood what Stacey was getting at in the post that you objected to. I should? Stacey said something like "and then I get the WB right." From that I was supposed to know he or she was talking about preset white point adjustments as opposed to using the various in-camera white balance adjustments? But regardless of whether I should or shouldn't have known that, I certainly wasn't "objecting" to Stacey's statement. I believe he or she only recently acquired his or her digital camera and I thought he or she perhaps didn't know about the effect of the in-camera white balance adjustments in RAW mode. Fine. Really. I'm probably just disconcerted from hearing Stacey sing the praises of her new E300. Who knew? rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
In article dNyEd.11638$lG.3095@trnddc03,
"Shelley" wrote: I'm probably just disconcerted from hearing Stacey sing the praises of her new E300. Who knew? Well I can certainly understand that, I'm in a state of shock myself. Who could possibly have predicted it would be Stacey participating in a digital camera thread and telling us what a hassle film is. Are you sure its not an impostor? -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
In article dNyEd.11638$lG.3095@trnddc03,
"Shelley" wrote: I'm probably just disconcerted from hearing Stacey sing the praises of her new E300. Who knew? Well I can certainly understand that, I'm in a state of shock myself. Who could possibly have predicted it would be Stacey participating in a digital camera thread and telling us what a hassle film is. Are you sure its not an impostor? -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Is it true that medium and large format films will be the first to go and that 35mm will continue long after they have gone? Thanks AL I could argue this one either way. Pro: 35 mm has a huge installed base, and is used in disposable film cameras as well. Lots more of it in the market than MF or LF film. On that basis, it will live forever. Con: Digital capture will replace 35 mm well before it replaces MF or LF. Lots of 35 mm SLRs and even nice Point & Shoot cameras are probably being quietly retired these days. IIRC, still photography is actually a very small portion of the film using market. One hollywood movie camera can use more film footage a day than a busy wedding photog does in a year. then you have scientific and medical usage. |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
if I need more quality, I'll use my 4X5 And how much longer until it will need to be 8x10 and the 4x5 gear goes on ebay?? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital vs Film - just give in! | [email protected] | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 159 | November 15th 04 04:56 PM |
Thumbnail Software? | Dave | Digital Photography | 40 | September 23rd 04 06:28 AM |
Figuring out coverage for non square formats? | Nick Zentena | Large Format Photography Equipment | 28 | May 23rd 04 07:54 PM |
Larger diameter lenses? | Dave | Large Format Photography Equipment | 10 | March 10th 04 03:04 AM |