 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005Is camera light metering sensitive to colour temperature?
(Talking 350D with kit lens) The recent discussion on RAW files prompted me to give them a go (and by the way - having done so I'll NEVER be going back to just High-quality JPEGs if it's something that has to look top-notch - but I digress). I made an interesting observation ... Whenever I setup my "studio quality" halogen work lights (diffused with "studio quality" oven baking paper) and take a photo or two I used to find two things of interest ... First up, as expected, the colour temperature was always way off (very cold) - so I did a custom white balance correction and got that bit pretty close ... Second up, (even) regardless of the white balance setting I always seemed to end up with all shots being under exposed by a full stop (or even a little more) - very consistent. When I looked at the pre-processing suggestions for a RAW file for the first time it was always suggesting a number of fairly heavy corrections (I'm assuming that it gets this from the parameters that would have been passed through to the Digic processor for a JPEG). If I tell PS NOT to use these parameters HEY PRESTO almost immediately I get an almost perfect exposure (in fact my uncorrected RAWs look better than the JPEGs have even after I've spend 1/2 hour on PS tweaking the JPEGS. It's almost like the camera has been taking a correct exposure all along, but passing incorrect compensation parameters to the Digic processor. Has anyone had any experience with this? The only thing I could think of was "could the fact that the colour temperature is so low be affecting the light metering"? Cheers, CC > (Talking 350D with kit lens) > > The recent discussion on RAW files prompted me to give them a go (and > by the way - having done so I'll NEVER be going back to just > High-quality JPEGs if it's something that has to look top-notch - but > I digress). Yes, RAW is definatly the way to go if you want any degree of control. Just like a darkroom without the mess. :-) > It's almost like the camera has been taking a correct exposure all > along, but passing incorrect compensation parameters to the Digic > processor. > > Has anyone had any experience with this? No. I would like to look at this. Are you able to email me a RAW file? (Remove NOSPAM from my reply address) -Mike >> It's almost like the camera has been taking a correct exposure all >> along, but passing incorrect compensation parameters to the Digic >> processor. I've been doing some more testing - and I think I made a wrong assumption. When I imported the RAW file into PS I assumed that the parameters entered by the system into the "pre-processing" dialog boxes were recovered from the RAW file as specific values - but on closer examination it appears as though PS is simply "looking at" the histogram and making recommendations based on that (unfortunately they're waaaaaay out). I've still got an exposure issue to sus out, but I'll do some more experiments with AEB and metering first. Thanks for your help. CC >(Talking 350D with kit lens) [..] >The only thing I could think of was "could the fact that the colour >temperature is so low be affecting the light metering"? [..] You probably mean "could the fact that the colour temperature is so high", compared with normal incandescent light - or "so low" compared with daylight? In either case, not a colour temperature the camera is calibrated for. I don't know about your camera model specifically, but I have read that many digital cameras (including DSLRs) use the green luminance channel only, not an average of the RGB channels, to compute and display the exposure histogram. If that data is then used to compute exposure compensation values to store in a RAW file, then the answer is yes. A high-Kelvin light source (containing a lot of blue and green) might cause the camera to think it has overexposed and try to compensate by reducing the exposure factor after taking the shot. I don't know if the sensors used to compute the exposure value _before_ taking the picture have a flat spectral response and/or if they compensate for different light temperatures (I would expect they do). If so, they also can give a biased exposure with light of a temperature they are not calibrated for. "Deedee Tee" <abuse@localhost> wrote in message > You probably mean "could the fact that the colour temperature is so > high", compared with normal incandescent light - or "so low" compared > with daylight? In either case, not a colour temperature the camera is > calibrated for. I might be getting myself confused here, but I was under the impression that halogen lights would be best suited to a white balance setting of "tungsten" - the same as incandescent lights? The halogen lights appear to have a spiralled tungsten coil in the bulb which starts off glowing red and slowly turns "white" as I crank up the voltage on my variac. In any case, regardless of which white balance setting I used I always ended up with quite a severe red colour cast - which I understand means "low colour temperature" - it appears to be considerably lower than any other light source. Only the custom correction totally compensated - the trial shot of a sheet of A4 paper was done on a tungsten setting and it came out with a very distinct colour cast - a follow up shot with the custom white balance came out (more or less white) - different as chalk and cheese. >I might be getting myself confused here, but I was under the impression that >halogen lights would be best suited to a white balance setting of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >temperature" - it appears to be considerably lower than any other light >source. I am under the impression that halogen photoflood lamps for photography use have a higher temperature (i.e. a bluer cast) than normal incandescent bulbs. However, if you use a different type of halogen lamp, anything is possible. Using a variac to change the lamp voltage does affect the temperature of the lamp and its colour cast, so you have to recalibrate the white balance every time you adjust the voltage. Darkroom enlargers for colour prints used to have a stabilized voltage/current source because even a tiny change in the lamp voltage would throw the white balance off. > Using a variac to change the lamp >voltage does affect the temperature of the lamp and its colour cast, >so you have to recalibrate the white balance every time you adjust the >voltage. Yes, exactly. I have a set of older studio lights with a calibrated transformer so I can change them from 3200K (tungsten) to 3400K (type A photoflood). Any time you change the voltage you change the colour temperature. Genuine photo type bulbs burn at approximately the same colour temperature throughout their life but there can be quite a range of colour temperatures for bulbs not specifically designed for photography. > >I might be getting myself confused here, but I was under the impression that > >halogen lights would be best suited to a white balance setting of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >temperature" - it appears to be considerably lower than any other light > >source. I'm wondering if it's possible to get bulbs for the work lamps that are the right colour temperature? These ones are definately red red red. I don't actually use the variac for my main lights - saving it instead for a backlight, so the main ones are always run at full voltage (which in all fairness probably varies a little). I'm wondering if, in our modern days of digital photography and tools like photoshop if things like white balance aren't anywhere near as critical - I'm thinking of including a black and white card in the corner of each shot to provide a reference for photoshop when removing a colour cast, then simply crop it out for the final "print". > I'm wondering if, in our modern days of digital photography and tools like > photoshop if things like white balance aren't anywhere near as critical - > I'm thinking of including a black and white card in the corner of each shot > to provide a reference for photoshop when removing a colour cast, then > simply crop it out for the final "print". Set up the lights, then take a shot of a Macbeth Color Checker, or, on the cheap, a gray card or white piece of paper or something at the subject position. Then just shoot. Do your adjustments on the test shot, then apply them to the entire series shot under the same light.  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Set up the lights, then take a shot of a Macbeth Color Checker, or, on the > cheap, a gray card or white piece of paper or something at the subject > position. Then just shoot. Do your adjustments on the test shot, then > apply them to the entire series shot under the same light. Thanks for that. What's the basic technique from within photoshop for applying the same correction to a series of photos? > What's the basic technique from within photoshop for applying the same > correction to a series of photos? In CS2, there are a couple of ways. The first is to make your adjustments on your test shot in Camera Raw, and then go into Bridge, do "copy Camera Raw settings" on that image, and then "paste Camera Raw settings" onto all the other images; it will give you a chance to tell it which settings you want to apply. The second would be to load up all of the images at once into Camera Raw, make the adjustments on the first, then click "select all" and then "synchronize". This, too, will let you choose which settings to apply. Obviously this probably isn't the best choice if there are a large number of images. In CS2 as well as previous versions, you can do them one at a time as you load them; first do your adjustments on the test image. Then, load up one of the other images and choose "previous conversion" from the drop-down menu, which will apply the settings from the last picture you did. If you do that every time, you can easily do some small number of pictures. You can also save the Camera Raw settings from the test image, from within Camera Raw. The little pop-up on the right side above the adjustment controls has two functions for this, "save settings" and "save settings subset". The latter will let you save only some of the settings. You can then do "load settings" with your other images to apply those settings to those images. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >I'm wondering if it's possible to get bulbs for the work lamps that are the >right colour temperature? Right for what? If you want lighting that renders grey objects such that the RAW values for red, green, and blue are the same, that would be magenta for many cameras, and the only way to get magenta light is with filters, as magenta is not a color temperature. I use magenta filters over my flashed when I am using all or mostly flash, and the shadows are much better than I get with any normal light temperature. Daylight and tungsten are both arbitrary, non-natural light sources for RAW data. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >I'm wondering if, in our modern days of digital photography and tools like >photoshop if things like white balance aren't anywhere near as critical - It's actually very critical, if you care about the qulaity of shadows, but as I said in another post, the best light is usually magenta with some (maybe most?) RGB Bayer cameras. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >I'm wondering if, in our modern days of digital photography and tools like >photoshop if things like white balance aren't anywhere near as critical - >I'm thinking of including a black and white card in the corner of each shot >to provide a reference for photoshop when removing a colour cast, then >simply crop it out for the final "print". Black does not help you to get a white balance (does "all cats are black at night" suggest anything?). Gray does, of course. White is not usable if overexposed. Gray also allows you to calibrate the exposure. You don't need to have the card in every shot, just set the camera's white balance on manual, put the card in a first calibration shot, then continue shooting without card until you change something in the lighting setup that might affect the white balance (primarily the lamp type/voltage and the positions of reflectors/diffusers if they are not white/silver). A calibrated neutral gray card is far preferable to a homemade one, which could have all sorts of strange colour tinges that might even change depending on the angle of illumination. >I'm thinking of including a black and white card in the corner of each shot >to provide a reference for photoshop when removing a colour cast, then >simply crop it out for the final "print". B&H carries these little pads of papers with a white, 18% grey, and black on each. Don't know how accurate the grey is, though. Next time I'm at B&H, I'll buy a pad and test them against the Gretag-Macbeth color checker. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >I don't know about your camera model specifically, but I have read >that many digital cameras (including DSLRs) use the green luminance >channel only, not an average of the RGB channels, to compute and >display the exposure histogram. If that data is then used to compute >exposure compensation values to store in a RAW file, then the answer >is yes. I doubt that the weighting for the histogram is used for anything but the histogram. In fact, if you shoot flat, evenly illuminated colored surfaces with AE, on my Canons, different colors wind up at different parts of the histogram, so the weighting is clearly independent of the metering sensitivity by color. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< |
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
|
©2009 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.