 |
 | 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 / December 2008Custom White Balance
Camera instruction manual recommend using a WHITE card to do a custom white balance setting, but have seen where recommend a 18% GRAY card to do the custom balance, which would be correct way to do it? Any comments what should be used and what most of you use, the camera auto setting or your own custom setting. John John Kecskes wrote,on my timestamp of 28/12/2008 3:26 PM: > Camera instruction manual recommend using a WHITE card to do a custom > white balance setting, but have seen where recommend a 18% GRAY card > to do the custom balance, which would be correct way to do it? > Any comments what should be used and what most of you use, the camera > auto setting or your own custom setting. > John White balance has got nothing to do with 18% gray cards. It deals with colour balance, not exposure. Gray cards are exposure aids. To do a custom white balance operation, use a white card or in fact any white surface. >John Kecskes wrote,on my timestamp of 28/12/2008 3:26 PM: >> Camera instruction manual recommend using a WHITE card to do a custom [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >cards are exposure aids. To do a custom white balance >operation, use a white card or in fact any white surface. Have to part agree with you on this, but some Image manipulating software also ask you to click on a white or gray part of the picture to set a white balance. cheers, John John Kecskes wrote,on my timestamp of 28/12/2008 6:29 PM: >> John Kecskes wrote,on my timestamp of 28/12/2008 3:26 PM: >>> Camera instruction manual recommend using a WHITE card to do a custom [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > software also ask you to click on a white or gray part of the picture > to set a white balance. cheers, John Image manipulating software has got nothing to do with camera white balance, which is what I thought you asked. Camera white balance is an ambient light colour temperature adjustment. The two things are completely different. What you do with the imaging software and a 18% card portion is calibrate a white balance of whatever the software is examining, so that it "knows" what "perfect"1 gray should look like. When you click on the white part of the picture, what you are doing is telling the image software what the brightest white is supposed to be in that image, so it adjusts its exposure response to make it appear "snow" white. Many others will also allow you to click on a supposedly "perfect" black in the image. Again: so that the software can establish the dynamic range of the image and how to adjust its basic sensitivity response curve to match that image and make it look "standard". Once again: custom white balance calibration in a camera has got nothing to do with gray cards or imaging software's black, gray and white points. >John Kecskes wrote,on my timestamp of 28/12/2008 6:29 PM: > >Image manipulating software has got nothing to do with >camera white balance, which is what I thought you asked. Camera >white balance is an ambient light colour temperature adjustment. >The two things are completely different. I thought once I set my camera white balance I won't have to do much manipulating in the software, I always seem to have trouble to set my picture up the way I like it. I want to get a way from post processing as much as possible. >What you do with the imaging software and a 18% card portion is >calibrate a white balance of whatever the software is examining, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >nothing to do with gray cards or imaging software's black, >gray and white points. thanks, I see know it is only the actual picture dynamic range when I set the white and black point in the software > thanks, I see know it is only the actual picture dynamic range when I > set the white and black point in the software Well that obviously depends on whether you are adjusting levels/contrast, or color/hue at the time. MrT. > Image manipulating software has got nothing to do with > camera white balance, which is what I thought you asked. Camera [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > nothing to do with gray cards or imaging software's black, > gray and white points. In fact both methods simply provide an adjustment of pixel-value mapping, so to say one has nothing to do with the other is totally wrong, or simple ignorance of what is actually being done to achieve the end result. MrT. > > Once again: custom white balance calibration in a camera has got > > nothing to do with gray cards or imaging software's black, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to say one has nothing to do with the other is totally wrong, or simple > ignorance of what is actually being done to achieve the end result. What is blatantly clear is your complete ignorance of the subject matter. Custom white balance in a camera has got absolutely NOTHING to do with imaging software exposure corrections. Only a moron ignorant like you could possibly confuse the two. >> In fact both methods simply provide an adjustment of pixel-value mapping, so >> to say one has nothing to do with the other is totally wrong, or simple [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >imaging software exposure corrections. Only a moron ignorant >like you could possibly confuse the two. I was who started asking this question in the first place, however setting the white balance has everything to do with the software exposure correction. If it is not done correctly in the camera in the first place no amount of software manipulating will get it right. It is next to impossible to over come wrong colours in the software, if you try to alter one others will alter just as much. Each of us have a opinion, you don't have to be nasty if somebody else is different to you. John > I was who started asking this question in the first place, however > setting the white balance has everything to do with the software [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to over come wrong colours in the software, if you try to alter one > others will alter just as much. Try shooting RAW instead, the color balance info is simply saved as a correction to be applied later by software, so obviously NO difference to the final result in that case. For those who DO insist on throwing away half the camera information at the time of shooting, (by saving to an 8 bit compressed file with all corrections applied, rather than a 16 bit data file) then yes getting the color balance right in the first place is obviously necessary. Continuing to argue without at least acknowledging the difference is pointlessly stupid. MrT. John Kecskes wrote,on my timestamp of 29/12/2008 5:55 PM: >> Custom white balance in a camera has got absolutely NOTHING to do with >> imaging software exposure corrections. Only a moron ignorant [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > setting the white balance has everything to do with the software > exposure correction. Please provide proof of your claim that camera white balance has "everything to do with software exposure correction"? Credible proof that is, not just "I say so". > If it is not done correctly in the camera in the first place no amount > of software manipulating will get it right. Completely wrong, of course. If you use RAW capture, you can always correct the white balance later on. It's a function of the processing of the raw data, not a physical attribute of the sensor. You can fiddle as much as you want with the camera setting, later on you can always correct to a different whit balance WITHOUT any loss IF you apply it to the RAW file. > It is next to impossible > to over come wrong colours in the software, if you try to alter one > others will alter just as much. Jesus.... > Each of us have a opinion, you don't have to be nasty if somebody else > is different to you. Please quote where I was nasty in my replies to you so far. Or are you that coward troll mrT? But now I shall be, given that you started down that path: You don't have to be stupid and ignorant and maintain your stupidity and ignorance once CLEARLY shown that you got NO CLUE what you are talking about. It's your choice, not mine. Like I said: provide ONE credible reference that claims and proves "camera white balance is the same as software exposure correction", as you claim above. One, please. If not then for sanity's sake shut the heck up and listen, instead of demonstrating your crass ignorance with every post. On Dec 29, 3:36 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote: >> > Once again: custom white balance calibration in a camera has got >> > nothing to do with gray cards or imaging software's black, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> to say one has nothing to do with the other is totally wrong, or simple >> ignorance of what is actually being done to achieve the end result. >What is blatantly clear is your complete ignorance of the subject >matter. Do explain then, IF you really think you can!!! >Custom white balance in a camera has got absolutely NOTHING to do with >imaging software exposure corrections. Only a moron ignorant >like you could possibly confuse the two. Since they BOTH simply attempt to map pixel values to a given color space, maybe you could *attempt* to explain why you think they have "absolutely NOTHING" to do with each other? (or maybe you are simply making up your own definitions so you can claim others are wrong?) Please start with the raw camera data, and explain exactly what you think is the difference as far as the final file data is concerned. (Keep in mind that any good camera will save a RAW data file in which the color balance information is simply saved as a correction to be applied later by software in any case) Of course that might require a level of knowledge and understanding that you obviously don't possess! MrT. Mr.T wrote,on my timestamp of 29/12/2008 6:12 PM: >>> In fact both methods simply provide an adjustment of pixel-value mapping, > so [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Do explain then, IF you really think you can!!! It's YOU who has to explain, moron. The claim is YOURS, moron. >> Custom white balance in a camera has got absolutely NOTHING to do with >> imaging software exposure corrections. Only a moron ignorant [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > maybe you could *attempt* to explain why you think they have "absolutely > NOTHING" to do with each other? Custom white balance does NOT attempt to "map pixel values to a given colour space", moron. There isn't ANY "colour space" involved in its operation, moron. Exposure corrections in imaging software using the eyedroppers do NOTHING in relation to colour, moron. They deal with relative intensity levels and dynamic range, moron. > (or maybe you are simply making up your own definitions so you can claim > others are wrong?) YOU are wrong. Simply. And the fact you cannot find ONE SINGLE reference ANYWHERE in the WWW that supports your claim is plenty of evidence that all you are doing is trolling, and as usual, very stupidly and demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge of photography. So, and without further ado: f.ck OFF, troll. > >>> to say one has nothing to do with the other is totally wrong, or simple > >>> ignorance of what is actually being done to achieve the end result. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's YOU who has to explain, moron. The claim is YOURS, moron. If I thought for a moment you could understand, I might waste some more time. But this is from the same person who wrote in another post in reply to someone else, almost exactly what I said already in this thread, and contradicts himself. "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:gja0j6$r1v$1@news.motzarella.org... >Completely wrong, of course. If you use RAW capture, you can always >correct the white balance later on. It's a function of the processing >of the raw data, not a physical attribute of the sensor. You can fiddle >as much as you want with the camera setting, later on you can always >correct to a different whit balance WITHOUT any loss IF you apply >it to the RAW file. Just what the hell IS your position, other than to abuse as many people as you possibly can? And then says : > Custom white balance does NOT attempt to "map pixel values to > a given colour space", moron. There isn't ANY "colour space" > involved in its operation, moron. And how exactly do you you map pixel values WITHOUT reference to a chosen color space? Your photo's must be as meaningless as your arguments. > Exposure corrections in imaging software using the eyedroppers > do NOTHING in relation to colour, moron. They deal with > relative intensity levels and dynamic range, moron. So obviously does not know how a digital camera works, how image data is encoded, or how to use photoshop to adjust anything other than levels. Maybe you should look for the color balance and hue adjustment tools. Maybe you should also investigate what Camera RAW, or Lightroom does, *besides* simple intensity level adjustment. Anyhow, good luck with your bi-polar disorder, I'm sure my wasting more time on you is not going to help though. MrT. > If I thought for a moment you could understand, I might waste some more > time. BWAHAHAHA! The obvious response of the ignorant troll grasping at straws. But this is from the same person who wrote in another post in reply to > someone else, almost exactly what I said already in this thread, and > contradicts himself. What I said is written and won't be changed, and it's been the same all along. It's YOU who is changing the story now, moron! > >Completely wrong, of course. If you use RAW capture, you can always > >correct the white balance later on. It's a function of the processing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Just what the hell IS your position, other than to abuse as many people as > you possibly can? To say the truth, moron. Something you are OBVIOUSLY not familiar with. Why are you pulling in another reply to someone else, in a reply to you? Can you even follow a single train of replies to YOU, moron? Or is the effort of concentration too hard? You should really try thinking once in a while, moron: it won't hurt you. > > Custom white balance does NOT attempt to "map pixel values to > > a given colour space", moron. There isn't ANY "colour space" > > involved in its operation, moron. > > And how exactly do you you map pixel values WITHOUT reference to a chosen > color space? Custom white balance does NOT map pixel values, moron. Period. Colour profiling is an operation that has NOTHING to do with colour white balance. Colour profiling is performed AFTER the colour white balance, and can be redone many times independently. Cripes, but you are STUPID.... > Your photo's must be as meaningless as your arguments. As opposed to yours which are unseen, unshown, and only exist in your sordid imagination, you imbecile moron! > > Exposure corrections in imaging software using the eyedroppers > > do NOTHING in relation to colour, moron. They deal with > > relative intensity levels and dynamic range, moron. > > So obviously does not know how a digital camera works, how image data is > encoded, or how to use photoshop to adjust anything other than levels. Listen, you STUPID moron: "imaging software" has NOTHING to do with camera firmware! Can you even GRASP the absurd IDIOCY of your idiotic claims? > Maybe > you should look for the color balance and hue adjustment tools. WTF has that got to do with in-camera white balance, you IMBECILE? > Maybe you should also investigate what Camera RAW, or Lightroom does, > *besides* simple intensity level adjustment. Do they run IN the camera as well, you stupid idiot? Can you even fathom the abyssal stupidity of your claims? > Anyhow, good luck with your bi-polar disorder, I'm sure my wasting more time > on you is not going to help though. Bipolar was your mother, fuckwit. That's why she produced a reject like you. Thanks for showing to all how once again you have put your foot in your mouth and demontsrated to everyone the imbecile and moronic troll that you are. For ONCE, admit that you cannot even understand basic English, IMBECILE! > Camera instruction manual recommend using a WHITE card to do a custom > white balance setting, but have seen where recommend a 18% GRAY card > to do the custom balance, which would be correct way to do it? > Any comments what should be used and what most of you use, the camera > auto setting or your own custom setting. > John With a couple of minor provisos, a white OR grey card will be fine for setting white balance. The provisos are: - the white or grey must be neutral 'White' paper often has a blue or cream tint, and if you were to print your own grey cards, or use cheap ones that were only intended for expsoure metering, you could end up with colour casts. Having said that, if you can't see the cast on the card, you are unlikely to spot it on the final result. And some folks (like me) think that using a slightly blue-tinted card will give more pleasant skintones and warmer scenes.. - the card must not be anywhere near the limits of the sensor's range Ie it would be unwise to use a dark grey card in low light, or a bright white card in direct sunlight! You really want your setting to be made in the linear range of the sensor, and if you are really fussy, then a card of similar brightness to your subject will give a white balance that is 'tuned' to those tones. Me? I usually have my camera set to daylight (sunny), given the stuff I normally shoot and the typical weather hereabouts. I sometimes use a white card (or that bluish card if I am organised, or whatever I can find) to manually balance. I sometimes use auto (eg city streets where lighting keeps changing) and rarely use the other presets. Before each shot I try to think about it! >With a couple of minor provisos, a white OR grey card will be fine for >setting white balance. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >lighting keeps changing) and rarely use the other presets. Before each >shot I try to think about it! Thank You for this that's what I thought, I have used white card, but seen a post in Goggle recommending a 18% gray card. cheers, John >>With a couple of minor provisos, a white OR grey card will be fine for >>setting white balance. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > seen a post in Goggle recommending a 18% gray card. > cheers, John If you want to avoid any stray colour reflections hampering the white balance, don't use a card at all. Get hold of a white balance filter (white-bal) which you put over the lens. It makes the whole scene an out of focus white and pretty much guarantees as perfect a white balance as you'll get. If you are not looking for scientifically precise white, you could use a white paper bag or even a tissue to do the same thing.  SignatureVisit my site: D-Mac.info My photos, Information about trolls and a little bit of fun too! > If you want to avoid any stray colour reflections hampering the white > balance, don't use a card at all. Get hold of a white balance filter > (white-bal) which you put over the lens. It makes the whole scene an out of > focus white and pretty much guarantees as perfect a white balance as you'll > get. ???? D-Mac should really read the instructions, or perhaps try to explain a little more accurately. It is NOT designed to "make the whole scene an out of focus white". If you simply put an 'Expocap' or similar white balance filter in front of the lens and point it at the scene, as D-Mac seems to imply, you are using it wrongly. You may be lucky and still get a decent white balance, but only if the scene averages to neutral... The way it should be used is to place the camera *in* the scene/near the subject, pointing *back* towards where you will take the shot, and take the custom reading then. That way the camera+filter is balancing for the light that is illuminating the scene. The filter is designed to average out all the incident light *falling* on the scene, NOT the scene itself. The two are quite different. By the way, most of the cheap knock offs of these filters found on Ebay are quite good, it seems from the reviews, and will obviously save you some money.. I will have to investigate further, but it seems it's getting to technical, may be best just set my white balance on auto and forget everything else cheers, >D-Mac should really read the instructions, or perhaps try to explain a >little more accurately. It is NOT designed to "make the whole scene an [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >are quite good, it seems from the reviews, and will obviously save you >some money.. "Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message > D-Mac should really read the instructions, or perhaps try to explain a > little more accurately. It is NOT designed to "make the whole scene an > out of focus white". If you simply put an 'Expocap' or similar white > balance filter in front of the lens and point it at the scene, as D-Mac > seems to imply, you are using it wrongly. You may be lucky and still get > a decent white balance, but only if the scene averages to neutral... There is always a smart arse prepared to chime in with their rendition of improving on my advise but the curious part and one that should have you ask their credibility before taking them seriously is: If he is so knowledgable... How come he kept you in the dark about the Photographer's worst kept "secret" in the first place? The w.nker didn't even know what a white balance filter was until I posted an article about them! http://www.douglasjames.com.au/previews/pics/white-filter.jpg Consider too, that he claimed then ...in this very same group, that the "knock off" he just recommended to you didn't work. Maybe they only work when he recommends them? Notice the one I linked to is already a "blue" tint? Funny that, isn't it? Did he recommend a "blue" white card for skin tones? More useless and misleading information. And... If Larry Thong knows so much, how do you get 18% grey out of white? This idiot calling himself Mark Thomas who used to call himself chrlz@go.com using the name of Charles Stevens as he made an idiot out of himself then, extolling the virtues of owning a Daiwoo car back in 2003 ...would try to have you believe he is the world's expert source of everything in photographic information... Even to the point of telling lies about me, a working Professional that this idiot has been cyber stalking for 5 years, as he attempts to asert himself as some sort of expert - WITHOUT ANY QUALIFICATIONS or evidence he can take a decent photo with his little Fuji Point and sh.t. If he could "read the instructions" himself, at the time he tried to spread lies about me not having a EPA permit to take photo tours into restricted areas, marine parks and defined recreational areas, he's have at least read the name of the department that issued the permits before publicly accusing me of lying about it with "Liar, the EPA doesn't issue permits to photogrpah in National parks". http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/permit.htm Dyslexic, stupid or just a plain old stalker? I guess he thrives on stalking. He certainly doesn't hold back with his lies and defamation. Like when he tried to tell the world I couldn't make wall posters from postcard size images. Odd that in 2004, when I showed them to the world. http://www.d-mac.info/digi-enlarge.htm he changed his attacks from "can't be done" "you can't do it" and then to "the resolution is poor". I wonder what his story will be now? Later (in 2005) a world recognized expert in photography. One of America's foremost fine art photographers "didn't want to believe" I could do it either. At least he had the guts and principals to admit he was wrong whilst writing a paper, based on the examples I sent him. http://www.douglasjames.com.au/moats_comments.htm Just to get in early in case he tries this furphy: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/4theidiots.htm SignatureVisit my site: D-Mac.info My photos, Information about trolls and a little bit of fun too! Mostly OT, just dealing with the troll. > "Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message >> D-Mac should really read the instructions, or perhaps try to explain a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There is always a smart arse prepared to chime in with their rendition of > improving on my advise ANY advise [sic] would be an improvement in this case. Readers will note that: 1. D-Mac's advice was CLEARLY wrong, and he spent the rest of this post avoiding that fact. TELL US HOW TO USE A WHITE BALANCE FILTER CAP, Douglas. DO YOU POINT IT AT THE SCENE, LIKE YOU SAID? READ THE F. MANUAL! 2. D-Mac, despite being a self-proclaimed professional, obviously doesn't know what incident light metering is or he would not have made such a beginner's mistake. I see even Rita picked him up on it - that's gotta hurt. > How come he kept you in the dark about the Photographer's worst kept > "secret" in the first place? Because a simple white/grey card will work for 99% of situations. D-Mac seems to forget he was the one suggesting it, but with bad advice on how to use it. I don't use a white balance cap, but I accept that some do. If someone offers them as an alternative, they should at least give correct advice on how to use them. Using them as D-Mac suggested would make them FAR less useful than a card. > The w.nker didn't even know what a white > balance filter was until I posted an article about them! > http://www.(incompetentphotographer).com.au/previews/pics/white-filter.jpg That's a picture, not an article. And what a strange (deluded?) thing to say. How exactly would D-Mac know when I found out about them, and why is it even vaguely relevant? One thing is certain from this thread - do not go to D-Mac pages looking for advice - he has already proven he doesn't even know the basics about incident metering... > Consider too, that he claimed then ...in this very same group, that the > "knock off" he just recommended to you didn't work. Link? Cite? Context? This is D-Mac's modus operandi - make a claim, but no supporting information. POST A LINK, or stop making stuff up, Douglas. > Maybe they only work > when he recommends them? Notice the one I linked to is already a "blue" > tint? Funny that, isn't it? Did he recommend a "blue" white card for skin > tones? Yes, I did. There is a link here to further discussion on that topic, by people who actually know what they are talking about. http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital.slr-systems/msg/109a489e3820 da96?hl=en > If Larry Thong knows so much, how do you get 18% grey out of white? 'Larry'/Rita was quite correctly referring to the fact that your camera averages the exposure, so the white image will be adjusted to grey before the neutralising.. The camera doesn't know it is white, d-mac. > This idiot calling himself Mark Thomas who used to call himself chrlz@go.com > using the name of Charles Stevens as he made an idiot out of himself then, > extolling the virtues of owning a Daiwoo [sic] car back in 2003 ...would try to > have you believe he is the world's expert source of everything in > photographic information... No, I always admit I have much to learn. But threads like this one make it clear who *doesn't* give correct advice, and I'll leave it to others to judge who is correct. (By the way, I'm not sure what cheap cars have to do with anything, but that same little DaEwoo Lanos is still running fine at over 300,000km, original engine, and the worst that has happened was a leaking radiator hose once.. Ask any mechanic - the Lanos is a very simple and reliable design and has an almost indestructible engine as long as you replace the timing belts every 100,000 or so (quite cheaply). I wouldn't want to be in a crash in one, tho..) Getting back to the topic, incident light metering is a relatively simple subject, yet 'inexplicably'(for someone who is taking the high road or knows anything about photography) D-Mac got it *completely* wrong. > Even to the point of telling lies about me The remainder of this deluded crap has been dealt with numerous times, and will be again in the near future..: http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/363519d7437e2de4?hl=en http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/msg/99e2b24d8f3d7cc1?hl=en http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/msg/0acf0d8036a32fa9?hl=en > Mostly OT, just dealing with the troll. > Readers will note that: > 1. D-Mac's advice was CLEARLY wrong, and he spent the rest of this > post avoiding that fact. Oi! Oi! Oi! Don't forget: http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html Do the Manly thing, Doug. -- Jeff R. (still patiently waiting for the service of the "Cease-and-Desist" papers...) :-( > Mostly OT, just dealing with the troll. Let me know if you ever get a brain Charlie. it might rattle a bit but at least you'll know there's something between your ears then. SignatureVisit my site: D-Mac.info My photos, Information about trolls and a little bit of fun too! I am sorry, I did not realize my simple question going to cause so much ill feeling cheers, John >"Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >Just to get in early in case he tries this furphy: >http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/4theidiots.htm > I am sorry, I did not realize my simple question going to cause so > much ill feeling > cheers, John Don't apologise, John - it's usenet! D-Mac tends to get a little upset when he is pulled up on any error-laden posts... The only thing you need to note is that if you *do* get a white balance filter cap thingy, do NOT use it by pointing it at the scene - that is NOT how it works. It basically turns your camera into an *incident* light meter. That means you point it *back* at where your camera will be for the shot, take the white balance, go to the taking position and use that white balance setting for your shots. Repeat process if/when the lighting changes.. If it all sounds too hard, just forget about it and use that white card/paper method. But I do suggest looking into a soft-blue card to give a slightly warmer effect. Experiment! If you have a good printer, why not try printing your own? - on mine, a card printed at 245, 245, 255 (RGB) works well for a very soft blue that will result in a warmer balance. If you try this, use a good quality heavy white matte paper, I particularly like Epson Double-Sided Matte which can be printed on one side and the obverse can be used for the 'normal' white-bal. >> I am sorry, I did not realize my simple question going to cause so >> much ill feeling [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >use that white balance setting for your shots. Repeat process if/when >the lighting changes.. No, I won't be getting cap thingy, have been using a hand held light meter for many years for film work and I do mostly using it in Incident mode >If it all sounds too hard, just forget about it and use that white >card/paper method. But I do suggest looking into a soft-blue card to >give a slightly warmer effect. Experiment! If you have a good printer, >why not try printing your own? - on mine, a card printed at 245, 245, >255 (RGB) works well for a very soft blue that will result in a warmer >balance. I have a Epson R-800 printer and it does a good job >If you try this, use a good quality heavy white matte paper, I >particularly like Epson Double-Sided Matte which can be printed on one >side and the obverse can be used for the 'normal' white-bal. Mainly use gloss, but will try Epson Matte paper soon John PS... > http://www.douglasjames.com.au/moats_comments.htm Are those *your* words, Douglas? Because that page does NOT mention the author's name ANYWHERE, nor is there any acknowledgment that the words are not your own. Furthermore, many of the links on the page are invalid as this is a very old quote - Gordon no longer uses that domain or email address. That sort of behaviour is imo very insulting to the original author. Here's how you *should* acknowledge the original author of an archived page: http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html Similar to your example, this is a page that no longer exists, and is reposted to make a point. But you will notice that full credit is given to the author. In regard to that page, Jeff, AC, I and others notice that despite you saying that you would show a completed, linear panorama for that scene (to prove that we were all wrong when we said it was impossible), you have *not* been able to do so. Do the Manly thing Doug. Your '4theidiots' link has been universally derided as not even close to answering the challenge, but it *is* a useful teaching tool. I show it to people and get them to spot all the errors, so they can learn to do panorama stitching *properly*. So, either post the completed panorama, or simply admit that you got it wrong (just like you did with your incorrect description of how to use a white balance filter - why can't you just admit that?). Happy New year, Douglas! Don't let a few tiny errors and embarrassments get you down! > PS... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > author's name ANYWHERE, nor is there any acknowledgment that the words are > not your own. What's up Charlie? Peeved I produce some evidence you lied. Stalked me over it and and never once appologised for your defamatory statements? Get a life idiot. You sure don't have much of one now. SignatureVisit my site: D-Mac.info My photos, Information about trolls and a little bit of fun too! >> PS... >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Get a life idiot. You sure don't have much of one now. I see you couldn't answer the question. Hint - those words were penned by Gordon Moat, not you. Yet neither his name, or any indication those words are not yours, appears anywhere on that page. Just like when you plagiarised the wedding tips list, and had to remove it from your site. So, when are you doing the Manly thing, Doug? http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html And here's your last chance - would you like to unreservedly withdraw the two separate (and false) allegations about 'theft' you made, admit you lied, and apologise?: http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/msg/a475bd836689cd3c http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/msg/b0198c6eacff8a44 Because take a wild guess what is going to happen if you don't..? There are other issues that will be dealt with also, but we'll start with those. It's entirely up to you, of course. Mark Thomas wrote,on my timestamp of 30/12/2008 7:00 PM: > Because take a wild guess what is going to happen if you don't..? > > There are other issues that will be dealt with also, but we'll start > with those. > > It's entirely up to you, of course. Yikes: NY resolution? I hope so, because the feud between you two is getting beyond imbecile. About time one of you carried through with the veiled threats. Sick and tired of it, quite frankly. > Mark Thomas wrote,on my timestamp of 30/12/2008 7:00 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > time one of you carried through with the veiled > threats. Sick and tired of it, quite frankly. Comming from you that's a huge statement, Noons. The basic issue is and always will be that this bastard started attacking me in 2003 because he couldn't or wouldn't believe someone else (me) could do something he believed couldn't be done. Enlarge digital images with a substancial degree of quality Ever since then he's taken a personal interest in attacking me and interfering (as much as he could) with my business and family, every time I make a post. No appologies for his lies, defamation and stalking, just more slander and defamation. As someone who commissioned a report, I have no need to announce who wrote it. It's just another straw the prick is grasping to save his drowning a.s. At least Bret Douglas knew when to stop. I think I'll take your advice Noons. When I get back to Australia, I'll waste the money and get a restraining order (AVO in NSW) against him. He's interfered with the orderly conduct of my business' for long enough. SignatureVisit my site: D-Mac.info My photos, Information about trolls and a little bit of fun too! > The basic issue is and always will be that this bastard started > attacking me in 2003 because he couldn't or wouldn't believe someone > else (me) could do something he believed couldn't be done. Enlarge > digital images with a substancial degree of quality Not me! I don't have a dog in that fight. (Why bother arguing that you cannot add valid detail with your process? Its like arguing that the tides cannot be stopped.) Me? I'm waiting (patiently) for you to correct the errors you made here: http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html Would you like me to list the as-yet-unaddressed errors of fact? It would be nice if you would apologise for the insults, too, but I don't expect good manners from D.Mac. The *best* result? Post your much-touted stepped-out panorama, and watch as we all squirm and apologise. Do the Manly thing, Doug. -- Jeff R. > Comming from you that's a huge statement, Noons. Dougie boy: ANYTHING from me is a HUGE statement, mate. You should know that by now. Bow to the master, insignificat! <g,d&r> > and a little bit of fun too! Good for you. Have a great NY. > Ever since then he's taken a personal interest in attacking me and > interfering (as much as he could) with my business and family, every time I > make a post. No appologies for his lies, defamation and stalking, just more > slander and defamation. At least I can spell apology. I don't apologise for telling the truth about your false claims, as proven innumerable times. > As someone who commissioned a report, I have no need to announce who wrote > it Another LIE. Here's a direct quote (my emphasis) from Gordon Moat, clarifying exactly that point: > First off, thanks for reading my article. I should point out that the > original requests for me to view images samples did NOT come directly [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ... In other words, I DID NOT WRITE THE ARTICLE FOR DOUGLAS, and I did > not write those articles for the pleasure of newsgroup people. ..that from: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/28833716bce9b4cd Could it be stated any more clearly? Douglas did NOT commission this article. So once again, he LIES. Have a great new year, Douglas, keep up the fine display of integrity. > By the way, most of the cheap knock offs of these filters found on Ebay > are quite good, it seems from the reviews, and will obviously save you > some money.. As is a white plastic drink cup (the really cheap thin ones work pretty well) and will save you even more money :-) MrT. > If you want to avoid any stray colour reflections hampering the white > balance, don't use a card at all. Get hold of a white balance filter > (white-bal) which you put over the lens. It makes the whole scene an > out of focus white and pretty much guarantees as perfect a white > balance as you'll get. First off, you supposed to point the lens/WhiteBal towards the light source (not the scene) as this is where the light is coming from. Secondly, what do you see when you look though the viewfinder? Hint, it's 18% gray, not white. Actually, 16% gray is optimal for digital. So, if you have a white/gray card you will get the same exact WB setting no matter what side you use. > If you are not looking for scientifically precise white, you could > use a white paper bag or even a tissue to do the same thing. It's all the same and will yield 16% to 18% gray. >First off, you supposed to point the lens/WhiteBal towards the light source >(not the scene) as this is where the light is coming from. In sunlight pointing towards the sun will damage the camera sensor, so I think using the white/gray card measure the light falling on to it. >Secondly, what do you see when you look though the viewfinder? Hint, it's >18% gray, not white. Actually, 16% gray is optimal for digital. So, if you >have a white/gray card you will get the same exact WB setting no matter what >side you use. Very true >> If you are not looking for scientifically precise white, you could >> use a white paper bag or even a tissue to do the same thing. > >It's all the same and will yield 16% to 18% gray. >> First off, you supposed to point the lens/WhiteBal towards the light source >> (not the scene) as this is where the light is coming from. > > In sunlight pointing towards the sun will damage the camera sensor Yes, but only if the sensor is exposed to a focused image for more than a few seconds (it *isn't* exposed to a focused image when the filter is attached). Examples of such damage are rare, and 'normal' photography briefly including the sun should not be a problem - DSLR sensors are also protected by the shutter until the actual exposure, so they are less likely to be affected than a p&s. > I think using the white/gray card measure the light falling on to it. I agree. It's simple and effective. >> First off, you supposed to point the lens/WhiteBal towards the light >> source (not the scene) as this is where the light is coming from. > > In sunlight pointing towards the sun will damage the camera sensor, so > I think using the white/gray card measure the light falling on to it. It's not a problem with the filter in front of the lens. You can also point it off slightly to the side of the sun as the same light is reaching your subjects you will eventually be photographing. A piece of white translucent fluorescent light diffuser makes the perfect WB calibration tool. Of course, you still have the white/gray card to use as well. Either way works. Interesting I will keep this in mind, however I never heard of a white balance filter before this cheers, John >If you want to avoid any stray colour reflections hampering the white >balance, don't use a card at all. Get hold of a white balance filter [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >If you are not looking for scientifically precise white, you could use a >white paper bag or even a tissue to do the same thing. |
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
|
©2010 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.