 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / August 2006what's with the price of colour temp meters?
sheesh, one would think that with dig, they'd have dropped in price. No way: as expen$ive as ever! :-( > sheesh, one would think that with dig, they'd have dropped > in price. No way: as expen$ive as ever! > :-( cost of production x volume of sales = high price. >> sheesh, one would think that with dig, they'd have dropped >> in price. No way: as expen$ive as ever! >> :-( > > cost of production x volume of sales = high price. Shouldn't that be cost of production / volume of sales = high price? Colin D  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >> sheesh, one would think that with dig, they'd have dropped > >> in price. No way: as expen$ive as ever! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Shouldn't that be cost of production / volume of sales = high price? oops!... ¦-) Never mind, ldr: I got what you meant. Thing that gets me though is there is no middle of the road anywhere. Either it's a decrepit old thing with CDS cells for 50 bucks or so or a snazzy, super-dig Minolssen for 1400. Where the bloody hell is the mid ground marketing? Say: 200-300 bucks? Aw heck! Better start the saving... >>>>sheesh, one would think that with dig, they'd have dropped >>>>in price. No way: as expen$ive as ever! [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Aw heck! Better start the saving... I have not looked deeply into this, but I would have thought a half way decent camera gives you than information when youtake a shot... possibly making the need for a colour meter redundant..... I would need to do some checking on this 'theory' however. kosh > I have not looked deeply into this, but I would have thought a half way > decent camera gives you than information when youtake a shot... possibly > making the need for a colour meter redundant..... I would need to do > some checking on this 'theory' however. most good dslrs will let me adjust the white balance by specifying a colour temperature. But that's me adjusting, ie: they presume I *know* what it is to start with. Far from the reality. One would think that a good use for all that electronic power in these cameras would be to provide this kind of functionality. As you so well point out. Yet none can do this, AFAIK. (and before anyone jumps in with the usual "take a shot and check the monitor", no, you *cannot* judge white balance by looking at the image in a lcd monitor!) > most good dslrs will let me adjust the white balance by > specifying a colour temperature. But that's me adjusting, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and check the monitor", no, you *cannot* judge white > balance by looking at the image in a lcd monitor!) Here's what I do: I shoot only raw with my DSLR. In at least one shot in each lighting situation I include a reliable grey reference in the shot. I use a set of WhiBal White Balance Reference Cards -- see http://www.rawworkflow.com/products/whibal/index.html When I do the raw conversion (with CaptureOne) I just click on the image of the grey card, and use that to set the white balance for all the shots in the set. This method is so simple and effective I wouldn't carry a colour temperature meter even if I had one. Peter Marquis-Kyle >> most good dslrs will let me adjust the white balance by >> specifying a colour temperature. But that's me adjusting, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Peter Marquis-Kyle i like it! kosh I'm perplexed with this. If I take a photo at sunset of a person in a white shirt I want the shirt to have a golden colour, not white. I wouldn't adjust the colour temperature on import of the raw file to make the shirt white. I would have thought the grey card was for exposure, not colour temperature. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : > most good dslrs will let me adjust the white balance by : > specifying a colour temperature. But that's me adjusting, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] : : Peter Marquis-Kyle > I'm perplexed with this. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I would have thought the grey card was for exposure, not colour > temperature. The grey card also provides a reference point for white balance. Being 18% grey, it should be 18% grey, not 18% grey with a bit of yellow in it. What would happen if it were used for a sunset shot? SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : > I'm perplexed with this. : > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : Being 18% grey, it should be 18% grey, not 18% grey with a bit of yellow in : it. > What would happen if it were used for a sunset shot? If you were taking sunset shot and the camera was on auto white balance, it would try to make the whole scene neutral or less 'golden' by adding more blue. If you had a grey card in the shot, it would have a bluish tinge to it (red+green=yellow, +blue=white). When processing the RAW file later, you could set the grey card area as your neutral reference point which would removed the excess blue from the pic. This would then give you the true 'golden' glow. You could then use the same colour settings for any other pics you took that that time. >> If I take a photo at sunset of a person in a white shirt I want the >> shirt to have a golden colour, not white. I wouldn't adjust the >> colour temperature on import of the raw file to make the shirt white. >> >> I would have thought the grey card was for exposure, not colour >> temperature. > The grey card also provides a reference point for white balance. > > Being 18% grey, it should be 18% grey, not 18% grey with a bit of yellow in > it. I don't know that all grey cards are suitable for use as white balance for digital cams. An 18% grey card designed to represent 18% grey to a monochromatic sensor for calculating exposure may have a spectral distribution that will causes a loss of neutrality under different lighting temps. I don't mean gold at sunset/sunrise but perhaps taking on a slight green or magenta cast as the color temp of the light changes rendering it unsuitable for white balance purposes. KC Signaturehttp://kenchandler.com > I'm perplexed with this. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I would have thought the grey card was for exposure, not colour > temperature. it can do both! > Here's what I do: I shoot only raw with my DSLR. In at least one shot in > each lighting situation I include a reliable grey reference in the shot. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > This method is so simple and effective I wouldn't carry a colour > temperature meter even if I had one. Not a bad way of getting around it. Thanks for the useful tip. >> most good dslrs will let me adjust the white balance by >> specifying a colour temperature. But that's me adjusting, >> ie: they presume I *know* what it is to start with. >> Far from the reality. > Here's what I do: I shoot only raw with my DSLR. In at least one shot in > each lighting situation I include a reliable grey reference in the shot. > I use a set of WhiBal White Balance Reference Cards -- see > http://www.rawworkflow.com/products/whibal/index.html > This method is so simple and effective I wouldn't carry a colour > temperature meter even if I had one. You could always buy yourself a GretagMacBeth Eye-One Display2 colorimeter for ~$400, lug it and your laptop along on your shoot and utilise the ambient light functionality to check color temp. As an added bonus you can use it to calibrate and profile your monitor :-). Peter's solution may be a little easier on the road *grin*. KC Signaturehttp://kenchandler.com >>I have not looked deeply into this, but I would have thought a half way >>decent camera gives you than information when youtake a shot... possibly [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > and check the monitor", no, you *cannot* judge white > balance by looking at the image in a lcd monitor!) hmmmm, you can't get the actual colour temp in degrees kelvin while reveiwing the shot? Or am I thinking of info you get from filebrowser in photoshop? kosh Hi, if you shoot in Raw, then you can use teh Adobe Raw plug in to tell you the colour tempratue. there is a little eye dropper that has a grey lower half. if you click that on any white object, the colour tempratuer will show up in "White Balance" As Shot temprature dialogure section to the right oftheImage window. Regards Sandy >>> I have not looked deeply into this, but I would have thought a half way >>> decent camera gives you than information when youtake a shot... possibly [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > kosh > if you shoot in Raw, then you can use teh Adobe Raw plug in to tell you > the colour tempratue. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Balance" As Shot temprature dialogure section to the right oftheImage > window. Cool! Thanks. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sandy The catch is "any white object" may not really white, or there may be none in shot. A proper grey target (like the WhiBal one) is a more reliable source for setting white balance. -Michael > hmmmm, you can't get the actual colour temp in degrees kelvin while > reveiwing the shot? Or am I thinking of info you get from filebrowser in > photoshop? not that I know of how. Could well be something I'm doing wrong. The only thing I can eventually see is the kelvin used by the camera to process raw data for white balance. Different from what the scene actually had, which is what I was trying to get. >>hmmmm, you can't get the actual colour temp in degrees kelvin while >>reveiwing the shot? Or am I thinking of info you get from filebrowser in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Different from what the scene actually had, which is > what I was trying to get. ahhh, I see your dilema.... recorded WB vs. ACTUAL WB!!!! maybe a grey/white card could do the trick.... a white peice of paper should set you back...ohhh 10cents. kosh You need to find a better paper supplier. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : maybe a grey/white card could do the trick.... a white peice of paper : should set you back...ohhh 10cents. : : kosh > ahhh, I see your dilema.... recorded WB vs. ACTUAL WB!!!! > > maybe a grey/white card could do the trick.... a white peice of paper > should set you back...ohhh 10cents. if only it was that easy... I need to know the exact colour temp. Not what the software of a dig camera might have thought it was (and marked it as such in the exif data). Couldn't care less if the digital image is colour balanced: if it has a different kelvin from the target marked against it - even though it might have been correct for the dig sensor - and I then use that value for a film image filter correction, the film will be all over the place. IOW, and before I lose track of the thought - heck, stay with me here, takes a while... :-) The colour temperature correction indicated in a dig image is not necessarily what the colour temperature of the target object was at the time the image was taken. It is simply what the dig camera firmware applied to the raw data to make the final image. Not an absolute number: it's a correction. That's why I need a proper colour meter... snip > The colour temperature correction indicated in a dig image is > not necessarily what the colour temperature of the target object > was at the time the image was taken. yeah... as I mentioned.. it measures the temp of the image taken, not the actual temp. can't you use a white card however.... take that as reference (filling the frame)... check the temp on the camera...set manually, then shoot? using that frame as a reference should do the trick..... mind you this is theory.. have not actually gone about trying this... though I am very tempted to do so now! I have been having quite a but of fun tweaking images through the WB to warm and cool shots. kosh > >> sheesh, one would think that with dig, they'd have dropped > >> in price. No way: as expen$ive as ever! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Shouldn't that be cost of production / volume of sales = high price? oops!... ¦-) Never mind, ldr: I got what you meant. Thing that gets me though is there is no middle of the road anywhere. Either it's a decrepit old thing with CDS cells for 50 bucks or so or a snazzy, super-dig Minolssen for 1400. Where the bloody hell is the mid ground marketing? Say: 200-300 bucks? Aw heck! Better start the saving... > sheesh, one would think that with dig, they'd have dropped > in price. No way: as expen$ive as ever! > :-( as there is less demnad... and hence less manufacturing... wich means rare... which means $$$$$$ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.