A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sunny 16 rule?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old September 8th 04, 11:29 AM
Chris Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 10th 04, 09:14 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 10th 04, 09:14 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 10th 04, 09:19 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 10th 04, 09:19 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 11th 04, 02:33 AM
Mark M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old September 11th 04, 04:18 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 11th 04, 04:18 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:28 PM
Rule of Thirds? Toke Eskildsen General Photography Techniques 65 January 11th 04 10:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.