 |
 | 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 / February 2008Custom white balance when using external flash
I own a Canon 30D, and I've found it to be weak with white balance. I started experimenting with custom white balance / grey card and have been getting good results. When I threw flash photography into the mix, my custom white balance shots coloring were off again. I've tried taking reference shots with and without flash then taking my custom white balance shots with flash and ugliness ensues. If I could get some helpful hints and a few how-to's I would be most appreciative. If I'm missing some info just let me know and I'd be glad to supplement. thanks, dave In article <161425cd-08af-4cd5-bdb7-ba006dfe9fc4@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, > I own a Canon 30D, and I've found it to be weak with white balance. I > started experimenting with custom white balance / grey card and have > been getting good results. *RAW* > In article > <161425cd-08af-4cd5-bdb7-ba006dfe9...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > *RAW* I was hoping for a little more than this. 8) I'll try raw format out but i was wondering how to achieve what I'm after with JPG and minimizing post work. I'm sure there are several techniques that I'm missing... In article <fddb060e-3c72-45a2-8665-3810d1b1e98c@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > I was hoping for a little more than this. 8) > > I'll try raw format out but i was wondering how to achieve what I'm > after with JPG and minimizing post work. I'm sure there are several > techniques that I'm missing... Shooting straight JPGs is too limiting and a pain in the a.s when you have color balance problems. Flash is supposed to be white like sunlight. Normal bright sunny days, the normal WB is close to 5500 so start with that. Shooting Raw will give you the latitude to be able to correct for the WB in Digital Darkroom. Is your external Flash TTL?? If your shooting in JPG you can either go auto WB and let your camera make this decision. But, Strat is right, shooting in Raw you can correct the shot later. Setting the camera for a normal sunny day for the white for Flash might bring you back into the correct WB. Test, test and more testing, then shoot in Raw and test again to see what happens. Not4wood > In article > <fddb060e-3c72-45a2-8665-3810d1b1e98c@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Shooting straight JPGs is too limiting and a pain in the a.s when you > have color balance problems. > Flash is supposed to be white like sunlight. Normal bright sunny days, the > normal WB is close to 5500 so start with that. Shooting Raw will give you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Not4wood My flash is Canon 430EX Speedlite E-TTL. I've used auto WB with the flash in TTL mode but Canon is often no so good at WB, especially when taking indoor shots / varying light sources. I've used all the preset WB settings and they sometimes help. I was super happy with Custom WB / grey card in the absense of flash so I'm a bit disapointed that there is apparently nothing I can do except work with RAW / do post processing. So am I to believe the custom WB / grey card techniques do not work when external flash gets involved? I'll experiment with your advice, including working with RAW - but i would like to know all my JPG WB options also. thanks a lot, dave > Flash is supposed to be white like sunlight. Normal bright sunny days, the > normal WB is close to 5500 so start with that. Shooting Raw will give you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you can correct the shot later. Setting the camera for a normal sunny day > for the white for Flash might bring you back into the correct WB. My experience with studio strobes is that they can vary quite a bit from model to model, let alone brand to brand. And if an expensive studio light can't do 5600K, then some little hot shoe do-dad isn't going to be even close to consistent. > I own a Canon 30D, and I've found it to be weak with white balance. I > started experimenting with custom white balance / grey card and have [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If I'm missing some info just let me know and I'd be glad to > supplement. I will echo the suggestion of working in raw. You should be able to find a color temperature and tint that works for one photo and use that setting for all of them. I really don't like using auto white balance, too much chance of variation from shot to shot. If you do get a variation from shot to shot, raw is by far the easiest format to adjust the color from shot to shot. Raw is also useful if it turns out your monitor is not currently calibrated perfectly, you have the choice of reconverting the shots at a later date and getting the color right. You might also decide at sometime to print from a wider color gamut then sRGB, kind of nice to have the raw file so you can do that, with jpeg you are stuck with whatever color space you have the jpeg in. Scott As others have mentioned, RAW will give you much more flexibility, however interesting post regarding getting it right in-camera. Normally, with ambient light you would fill most of the frame with a grey card, but with flash this is obviously not so easy. So, just out of interest, how are you using flash with a grey card to determine in-camera white balance? After shooting the grey card with flash, where is the spike on the histogram? Is it in the middle? What happens if you use the in-camera white balance setting for flash? Are the results OK? >I own a Canon 30D, and I've found it to be weak with white balance. I > started experimenting with custom white balance / grey card and have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > thanks, dave > As others have mentioned, RAW will give you much more flexibility, however > interesting post regarding getting it right in-camera. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > interest, how are you using flash with a grey card to determine in-camera > white balance? I've tried taking reference shots of my WhiBal card both with flash on and off. then when taking the actual exposures based on the custom setting they are both off. When taking the reference shots of the grey card I suspect when shooting with flash on, the flash is not hitting the card properly as its too close to the camera, and shooting without flash is wrong for setting custom WB as I'm taking the actual shots with flash on. > After shooting the grey card with flash, where is the spike on the > histogram? Is it in the middle? My last experiment of shooting the grey card was without flash and its histogram spike was on the left. I'll try shooting the grey card with flash again and see where the histogram spike ends up... > What happens if you use the in-camera white balance setting for flash? Are > the results OK? Using in camera flash WB setting often produces best results for me of in-camera settings. However I've noticed that if the room has a powerful lighting (halogen for example) then the WB is off with the flash WB setting. So I certainly will experiment with RAW, but I sure am surprised that getting it right in-camera is possibly not readily achievable. (I have thousands of pictures that need touching up right now from recent extended travels, so i'm very interested in minimizing my post work in the future.) thanks, dave >> As others have mentioned, RAW will give you much more flexibility, however >> interesting post regarding getting it right in-camera. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> interest, how are you using flash with a grey card to determine in-camera >> white balance? > I've tried taking reference shots of my WhiBal card both with flash on > and off. then when taking the actual exposures based on the custom [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > without flash is wrong for setting custom WB as I'm taking the actual > shots with flash on. >> After shooting the grey card with flash, where is the spike on the >> histogram? ?Is it in the middle? > My last experiment of shooting the grey card was without flash and its > histogram spike was on the left. I'll try shooting the grey card with > flash again and see where the histogram spike ends up... >> What happens if you use the in-camera white balance setting for flash? ?Are >> the results OK? > Using in camera flash WB setting often produces best results for me of > in-camera settings. However I've noticed that if the room has a > powerful lighting (halogen for example) then the WB is off with the > flash WB setting. When the lighting comes from sources of two different colours, as it will with indoor lighting plus flash, then where the grey card histogram spike occurs will depend on where in space you put the card and how it gets lit. There is no single correct white balance in such circumstances, it's a question of taste. And because the eye adapts its own white balance to the ambient, you'll never get a photograph to look quite like how it was at the time when you were there. You have to select a pleasing representation. Depending on the complexity of the resultant mix of lighting and your camera's adjustment flexibility, your in camera WB adjustments may not be able to cover what you want.  SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > (I have thousands of pictures that need touching up right now from > recent extended travels, so i'm very interested in minimizing my post > work in the future.) Dave, the post procesing can be automated if the lighting was consistent. In travel photography, consistent lighting is rare, and there is an element of post processing that's kind of like sorting your slides on a light table -- the bad shots don't get any better, but the good ones stand out. Here's what I do: Set the camera to capture RAW + Small-Fine JPG (and use a big CF card). Preview the JPG images for composition. Select the best for RAW post-processing. Using Photoshop and the appropriate camera raw processors, you can grab the dropper tool and sample the image to get the best white balance. HTH, Ray > I own a Canon 30D, and I've found it to be weak with white balance. I > started experimenting with custom white balance / grey card and have [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > thanks, dave Your problem is that your flash is not "true" daylight balanced. Most portable flashes (not all) have uncorrected and unfiltered for UV flash tubes. (They are clear. Corrected tubes have a yellowish tinge.) Their true color temperature is usually anywhere from 5800K to 6500k. Too Blue. I use Rosco Cinegel filters to correct or adjust the color temp of my flashes. http://www.rosco.com/us/index.asp Click on "Filter Facts" lower right corner of page. Get a sample book of all the filters. The filters will just cover the flash lens of your average portable flash. And the book is usually free! Run tests until the the flash light matches your Custom balance. Stef > > I own a Canon 30D, and I've found it to be weak with white balance. I > > started experimenting with custom white balance / grey card and have [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > average portable flash. And the book is usually free! Run tests until > the the flash light matches your Custom balance. In the days of film this might be been a problem, but with digital it would seem to be much less of one. Scott I note you talk of mixed lighting in one of your posts and when this occurred you had the WB set to "flash". If you are shooting in a mixed lighting environment even using flash and having to shoot jpg, I would let the camera set the whit balance by setting Auto. This seems to work with my 20D. I also use a 1D and always shoot raw for all the reasons you are experiencing. If you have "thousands" of shots as one of your posts implies, then it must be an important hobby and raw is the way to go. I use breeze browser for my conversions and the whole workflow isn't that time consuming as it would be to get the right colour balance with a JPG. Regards Don On Dec 23, 1:45 pm, Stefan Patric <toot...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:05:38 -0800, Dave wrote: > > I own a Canon 30D, and I've found it to be weak with white balance. I [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > average portable flash. And the book is usually free! Run tests until > the the flash light matches your Custom balance. In the days of film this might be been a problem, but with digital it would seem to be much less of one. Scott > I use > breeze browser for my conversions and the whole workflow isn't that time > consuming as it would be to get the right colour balance with a JPG. If you get it right "on the negative," post-processing will be an absolute minimum. >> I use >> breeze browser for my conversions and the whole workflow isn't that time >> consuming as it would be to get the right colour balance with a JPG. > >If you get it right "on the negative," post-processing will be an >absolute minimum. Since white balance is not done "on the negative", which is to say to the raw data from the sensor saved as a RAW file, that statement has no signficance. White balance only happens when RAW is converted to JPG, and getting that right in the camera may not even be possible, due to the limited range of and incremental adjustments available for in camera processing. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Since white balance is not done "on the negative", which > is to say to the raw data from the sensor saved as a RAW [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > limited range of and incremental adjustments available for > in camera processing. I know that. But the OP was complaining about the cumbersome workflow. If you get it right the first time, your workflow will be significantly reduced. >> Since white balance is not done "on the negative", which >> is to say to the raw data from the sensor saved as a RAW [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I know that. Then why make statemens that do not apply and are simply incorrect? I suspect it is because, no you do not "know that". >But the OP was complaining about the cumbersome workflow. >If you get it right the first time, your workflow will be significantly >reduced. What you replied to said "and the whole workflow isn't that time consuming" and clearly was *not* a complaint about a cumbersome workflow. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Then why make statemens that do not apply and are simply > incorrect? > > I suspect it is because, no you do not "know that". Floyd, I've forgotten more than you'll ever know. > What you replied to said "and the whole workflow isn't > that time consuming" and clearly was *not* a complaint > about a cumbersome workflow. The post I replied to was complaining about the cumbersome workflow. Read before typing please. >> Then why make statemens that do not apply and are simply >> incorrect? >> >> I suspect it is because, no you do not "know that". > >Floyd, I've forgotten more than you'll ever know. About how to survive as you, yes. But we are discussing digital photography, which you obviously have little understanding of. >> What you replied to said "and the whole workflow isn't >> that time consuming" and clearly was *not* a complaint >> about a cumbersome workflow. > >The post I replied to was complaining about the cumbersome workflow. See the quote? Read the quote. Stop denying the obvious! >Read before typing please. Projection is not valid. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > But we are discussing digital photography, which you > obviously have little understanding of. Compare my images to yours. Uh-oh...you lose. Gentlemen, if you actually read the whole thread you will see where the confusion is coming from. The original post was about the workflow demands. My response to that then used the phrase about the workflow not being that bothersome. It would appear you were both referring to a different post, one the original and two my response. Hope that helps clear the tension. regards Don from Down Under on Christmas Day, not a time for fighting. >> But we are discussing digital photography, which you >> obviously have little understanding of. > > Compare my images to yours. > > Uh-oh...you lose. > Gentlemen, if you actually read the whole thread you will see where the > confusion is coming from. The original post was about the workflow demands. > My response to that then used the phrase about the workflow not being that > bothersome. It would appear you were both referring to a different post, > one the original and two my response. Hope that helps clear the tension. Oh, I know. But Floyd has a reading comprehension problem (in addition to being unable to create decent images). >> But we are discussing digital photography, which you >> obviously have little understanding of. > Compare my images to yours. > Uh-oh...you lose. It's much simpler than that. In discussions what matters is who knows what they're talking about, as shown by what they actually say. The confused "expert" who's forgotten more than anyone can remember is no use to anyone in a discussion. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > It's much simpler than that. In discussions what matters is who knows > what they're talking about, as shown by what they actually say. The > confused "expert" who's forgotten more than anyone can remember is no > use to anyone in a discussion. Again, Floyd is a person who can spout technical facts ad nauseum, but if you put a camera in his hands, he's lost. I've run into a lot of these types through the years in photography, the computer world, and in the music world (my three hobbies). Whadda ya gonna do? >> It's much simpler than that. In discussions what matters is who knows >> what they're talking about, as shown by what they actually say. The [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >these types through the years in photography, the computer world, and >in the music world (my three hobbies). Whadda ya gonna do? You might try listening and learning. About photography for one... But more importantly, from the perspective of people reading the photography newsgroups, it would be nice if you paid a bit of attention to the writing skills that others display here. Posting useful articles that help people, rather than loudly proclaiming that you've forgotten how it works, should be what "ya gonna do". SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > You might try listening and learning. About photography > for one... Been there...done that...for over four decades. > But more importantly, from the perspective of people > reading the photography newsgroups, it would be nice if > you paid a bit of attention to the writing skills that > others display here. I have. They're deplorable. > Posting useful articles that help people, rather than > loudly proclaiming that you've forgotten how it works, > should be what "ya gonna do". In recent weeks, I've told someone how to properly pose and light a group of five...explained why fluorescent lighting is a poor choice for studio use...explained that trying to put filters over a strobe to get proper color balance with JPGs is akin to masturbation...explained why doing the formal poses before the wedding ceremony is the preferred way of doing things for professionals. Looks like nobody wants to do things the right way. >> It's much simpler than that. In discussions what matters is who knows >> what they're talking about, as shown by what they actually say. The >> confused "expert" who's forgotten more than anyone can remember is no >> use to anyone in a discussion. > Again, Floyd is a person who can spout technical facts ad nauseum, but > if you put a camera in his hands, he's lost. I've run into a lot of > these types through the years in photography, the computer world, and > in the music world (my three hobbies). Whadda ya gonna do? Well, since the reason I read about photography is to learn, I'm much more interested in reading posts by people who can spout technical facts than people who claim they're better but who just post patronising sneers and insults. So since you ask, I'm going to read Floyd's posts for information and yours for comedy. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > Well, since the reason I read about photography is to learn, I'm much > more interested in reading posts by people who can spout technical > facts than people who claim they're better but who just post > patronising sneers and insults. So since you ask, I'm going to read > Floyd's posts for information and yours for comedy. Glad that I can provide some amusement. But how does it benefit anyone to create better images by reading a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo about how sensors work, AA filters, and the minutae of the technology? And do you really want to get information from someone who does not have the ability to create decent images? >> Well, since the reason I read about photography is to learn, I'm much >> more interested in reading posts by people who can spout technical >> facts than people who claim they're better but who just post >> patronising sneers and insults. So since you ask, I'm going to read >> Floyd's posts for information and yours for comedy. > Glad that I can provide some amusement. > But how does it benefit anyone to create better images by reading a > bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo about how sensors work, AA filters, and > the minutae of the technology? Now you've switched from your original phrase of "technical facts" to "technical mumbo-jumbo". Obviously I see a more important difference between the two than you do. > And do you really want to get > information from someone who does not have the ability to create decent > images? No, but you haven't shown any evidence of being able to take decent photographs either. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > Now you've switched from your original phrase of "technical facts" to > "technical mumbo-jumbo". Obviously I see a more important difference > between the two than you do. I didn't change anything. So many people in these groups seem obsessed wit the technical aspect of digital photography. > No, but you haven't shown any evidence of being able to take decent > photographs either. I have posted the URL to my digital images a number of times in the past. >> Now you've switched from your original phrase of "technical facts" to >> "technical mumbo-jumbo". Obviously I see a more important difference >> between the two than you do. > >I didn't change anything. So many people in these groups seem obsessed >wit the technical aspect of digital photography. Fact: A person's ability to make photographs is limited to their understanding of how to use technology. That is why your photography is so limited in range, and is becoming even more limited as technology continues to change and you are unable/unwilling to adapt. >> No, but you haven't shown any evidence of being able to take decent >> photographs either. > >I have posted the URL to my digital images a number of times in the >past. Not that anyone noticed. You take nice pictures Randall..., that are abjectly boring. Your photography is no better and no worse than mine or anyone else's images here, but yours *are* just about as limited as any of the relative novices (that you insult with regularity). The range of skill diversity you demonstrate is a fraction of that commonly seen in the photography of others, even those with much less experience than you. Comparing your photography to almost anyone here, and claiming you are better is just hilarious. Your insults to others are an indictment of yourself. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Fact: A person's ability to make photographs is limited > to their understanding of how to use technology. Through the years, I've known people who have no understanding of photographic technology, yet they had a good "eye" for creating images. > That is why your photography is so limited in range, and > is becoming even more limited as technology continues to > change and you are unable/unwilling to adapt. I only post what I feel like posting. You have not seen the entire scope of what I do with photography. Since moving to digital, I have not photographed weddings or done any portraiture. I did enough of that in my film days. > Not that anyone noticed. You take nice pictures > Randall..., that are abjectly boring. One man's ceiling is another man's floor. > Your photography is no better and no worse than mine or > anyone else's images here, but yours *are* just about as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > photography of others, even those with much less > experience than you. OK, so I don't mess around in PhotoShop taking someone's head and sticking it on someone else's body. So what? Through the years, I have developed the simple ability to tell a good photograph from a bad one. The ones on your Web site are what we call in the business - bad. > Comparing your photography to almost anyone here, and > claiming you are better is just hilarious. Your insults > to others are an indictment of yourself. I didn't claim that I was better than everyone else. I've seen some work posted here that is pretty impressive. It's just you and Navas that are particularly mediocre, especially when you take into account both of your frequent techno-rants. >> Fact: A person's ability to make photographs is limited >> to their understanding of how to use technology. > >Through the years, I've known people who have no understanding of >photographic technology, yet they had a good "eye" for creating images. Yet, they could only take photographs *because* they understood and used the technology available in a camera. If they didn't understand and use technology, they didn't make a photograph! They didn't create even a single photograph without using the technology, and they *necessarily* had to understand some part of it to use that part of it. >> That is why your photography is so limited in range, and >> is becoming even more limited as technology continues to >> change and you are unable/unwilling to adapt. > >I only post what I feel like posting. You have not seen the entire >scope of what I do with photography. You only post what you feel is "fine photography"... the best you have. It's boring. It lacks imagination. It has no depth, it has no range, and it isn't exciting in any way. It's just some nice pictures. >Since moving to digital, I have not photographed weddings or done any >portraiture. I did enough of that in my film days. So I noticed. Anything that moves faster than a rock is gone before you can get set up for it... >> Not that anyone noticed. You take nice pictures >> Randall..., that are abjectly boring. > >One man's ceiling is another man's floor. And everyone seems to be walking on you... >> Your photography is no better and no worse than mine or >> anyone else's images here, but yours *are* just about as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >OK, so I don't mess around in PhotoShop taking someone's head and >sticking it on someone else's body. So what? That's a great illustration of just how limited your imagination is. >Through the years, I have developed the simple ability to tell a good >photograph from a bad one. The ones on your Web site are what we call >in the business - bad. You have a simple minded process though, and the results are simplistic. Lots of people don't much care for my photography. Lots of other people think it's wonderful. What *you* think of it is neither here nor there. Besides, my web site is not a display of "fine photography" the way yours is. The images that I post are selected to illustrate a point that has nothing to do with photography, and a truly "horrible" example of photography can sometimes be the *best* way to demonstrate a point. When that happens, I do use a "horrible" photograph to make the point. Of course, the significance of that will fly totally over your head, but let me state it anyway: That very distinctly defines said photograph to be a "good" photograph. The fact that your simplistic method does not catch that is a flaw in the method, not in the photograph! >> Comparing your photography to almost anyone here, and >> claiming you are better is just hilarious. Your insults >> to others are an indictment of yourself. > >I didn't claim that I was better than everyone else. You do exactly that, repeatedly. It's all nothing but pompously asinine. >I've seen some >work posted here that is pretty impressive. It's just you and Navas >that are particularly mediocre, especially when you take into account >both of your frequent techno-rants. Oddly though, *you* can't match it yourself. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >In article <87ejd8ylmw....@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson > ><fl...@apaflo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > Oddly though, *you* can't match it yourself. Floyd, the biggest problem I see with the images you have posted is that they are either gifs or jpegs that have far too much compression. In this photo for example the man on top of the whale is a blurry mess, and the sky has a blocky weird look to it. http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson/whales/whale010.html None of you image look sharp, which I am sure is from how you save them rather then how you take them. At some level the ugliness of a poorly saved image will distract from interesting content, I believe this is happening to many of your photos. Scott >Floyd, the biggest problem I see with the images you have posted is >that they are either gifs or jpegs that have far too much compression. The biggest problem with that sort of comment... is ignorance of web page design and content. >In this photo for example the man on top of the whale is a blurry >mess, >and the sky has a blocky weird look to it. >http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson/whales/whale010.html Do you know what that is? It was taken with a Sony FD-91, in October 2000. That is almost straight out of the camera, though it was in fact reduced in size to keep it under 800x600. It illustrated the point about as well as could be done at the time it was posted (November 2000). Yes, there were better digital cameras available at the time, but not without paying 5 times the price either. >None of you image look sharp, which I am sure is from how you save >them rather then how you take them. *Nothing* there is designed to demonstrate fine photography. I have no intention of posting printable images on my web site, which would grossly detract from the purpose it is intended to serve. It needs to load quickly, even for people with a slow dialup Internet access. It does *not* require that any image be reasonable looking at any size beyond 600x480, and it would be abject stupidity on my part use anything larger that 1024x768. >At some level the ugliness of a poorly saved image will distract from >interesting content, I believe this is happening to many of your >photos. At some level of stupidity, posting technically "correct" images will simply destroy the purpose of the web page. Heh, I've got an excellent example to toss your way, which illustrates the point with a bit of finality. Try to find a good image of a Nikon 600mm f/4 lense on the Internet. Nikon is happy to make one available, and virtually every company needing a picture of it uses the image that Nikon provides. http://nikonusa.com/images/products/2133_360.jpg That is a 360x360 JPEG image, which suffers many of the same technical characteristics as the image of mine that you cited above. You are free to suggest that Nikon doesn't know what they are doing, and that a "poorly saved image will distract from interesting content" if you like... but you are dead wrong. Nikon *knows* what they are doing. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >Floyd, the biggest problem I see with the images you have posted is > >that they are either gifs or jpegs that have far too much compression. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the camera, though it was in fact reduced in size to > keep it under 800x600. The image show huge jpeg artifacts, as well it should give how small the file size is, in bytes not pixels. Don't blame the camera, it can take good photos at the size you posted, see below http://www.pbase.com/image/64043280 And it is not just that one photo, just about all your photos show huge jpeg artifacts, kind of hard to enjoy the photos. Scott >> Do you know what that is? It was taken with a Sony >> FD-91, in October 2000. That is almost straight out of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >posted, see below >http://www.pbase.com/image/64043280 Sure. So what? I have absolutely zero interest in demnstrating that an FD-91 can take good pictures. (Or, for that matter, that *I* can.) Good photography is simply *not* what that particular essay was intended to provide. In 2000, the *last* thing I wanted was anyone copying an image off my web site and using it other than _exactly_ in the way I had done. I'm somewhat less concerned about that today (for political reasons that are no doubt far beyond your area of interest or understanding), but not to the point where I'll post images that have not been similarly crippled even though the "original" is vastly superior to what an FD-91 could dream of producing. >And it is not just that one photo, just about all your photos show >huge jpeg artifacts, kind of hard to enjoy the photos. If you insist on looking for fine art style photography where none is intended, you are going to be disappointed. Look at the images of whales from 2007... taken with a Nikon D2x, and yet they too are reduced in size, though not quite to the extent that I did it in 2000. The point is, except in the size that I specified on my web site, those images are *intended* to reproduce poorly. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Sure. So what? I have absolutely zero interest in > demnstrating that an FD-91 can take good pictures. > (Or, for that matter, that *I* can.) Every job is a self-portrait of the person who did it. You should, therefore, autograph your work with excellence. > Good photography is simply *not* what that particular > essay was intended to provide. In 2000, the *last* [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > crippled even though the "original" is vastly superior > to what an FD-91 could dream of producing. Who in the hell would want to steal that crap? > If you insist on looking for fine art style photography > where none is intended, you are going to be > disappointed. And you said that mine were boring. Glad to see you're pushing the limits of technology. >> If you insist on looking for fine art style photography >> where none is intended, you are going to be >> disappointed. > > And you said that mine were boring. Glad to see you're pushing the > limits of technology. LOL! Give Uncle Floyd credit and a little respect, he did buy a Nikon D3. That sample pic he posted of the snow-covered slum was a real dealmaker for me that pushed Floyd's skill level and the technical limits of the old D3. Rita > LOL! Give Uncle Floyd credit and a little respect, he did buy a Nikon D3. > That sample pic he posted of the snow-covered slum was a real dealmaker for > me that pushed Floyd's skill level and the technical limits of the old D3. Well, he bitched at me for creating boring images, but I find little excitement in pictures of dumpster graffiti. >> Floyd, the biggest problem I see with the images you have posted is >> that they are either gifs or jpegs that have far too much >> compression. > > The biggest problem with that sort of comment... is > ignorance of web page design and content. BULLSHIT! It's just the ignorance of posting shitty images. >> In this photo for example the man on top of the whale is a blurry >> mess, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the camera, though it was in fact reduced in size to > keep it under 800x600. My Kodak DC280 of the same era never produced that level of excrement. > It illustrated the point about as well as could be done > at the time it was posted (November 2000). Yes, there > were better digital cameras available at the time, but > not without paying 5 times the price either. NONSENSE! My Kodak DC280 was nowhere near what was even considered good for that time and it still put out cleaner images. >> None of you image look sharp, which I am sure is from how you save >> them rather then how you take them. > > *Nothing* there is designed to demonstrate fine > photography. At least you're honest! Now don't go blaming the D3 for producing whale excrement when you get your a.s hammered for posting that sh.t. > I have no intention of posting printable images on my > web site, which would grossly detract from the purpose [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > any size beyond 600x480, and it would be abject > stupidity on my part use anything larger that 1024x768. Lame excuse! You can definitely satisfy these requirements with a very clear, crisp, and sharp 600x480. Of course, they can be links to perfectly clear 1024x768 while keeping them between 150-200K in size. The issue is your making excuses for piss poor photography. >> At some level the ugliness of a poorly saved image will distract from >> interesting content, I believe this is happening to many of your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "correct" images will simply destroy the purpose of the > web page. What? This is beyond your level of stupidity! > Heh, I've got an excellent example to toss your way, > which illustrates the point with a bit of finality. Try [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > saved image will distract from interesting content" if > you like... but you are dead wrong. No, Floyd, that is an image that is smaller than yours and *DOESN'T* suffer from the same mistakes you make. And let's not forget to mention it does link to a clearer and larger image. <http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/telephoto/af-s_600mmf_4d_if_2/im g/pic_001_l.jpg> > Nikon *knows* what they are doing. And you don't. Rita > BULLSHIT! It's just the ignorance of posting shitty images. Whoa! Another fan. :-) > My Kodak DC280 of the same era never produced that level of excrement. I use a Canon 10D which is 4+ years old. The program I use to create the gallery is a free Mac program called Galerie. I give it a folder of full-size TIFFs, and it creates the two sizes of images for the gallery. And at 800x600, they still look better than Floyd's. > NONSENSE! My Kodak DC280 was nowhere near what was even considered good for > that time and it still put out cleaner images. And I didn't even complain about the technical quality. I just thought the content was poor. >> BULLSHIT! It's just the ignorance of posting shitty images. > > Whoa! Another fan. :-) LOL! Floyd's our favorite "newsguy" and we love him. >> My Kodak DC280 of the same era never produced that level of >> excrement. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of full-size TIFFs, and it creates the two sizes of images for the > gallery. And at 800x600, they still look better than Floyd's. Exactly! For my targeted audience in the groups, I resize in HTML for bandwidth purposes and added appeal and they still look better than Floyd's crap. >> NONSENSE! My Kodak DC280 was nowhere near what was even considered >> good for that time and it still put out cleaner images. > > And I didn't even complain about the technical quality. I just thought > the content was poor. Well, that's another topic of discussion that we can discuss with Uncle Floyd. Rita > In article <13n8q10a21gk...@news.supernews.com>, Rita Ä Berkowitz < > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And I didn't even complain about the technical quality. I just thought > the content was poor. It depends on what you are after in a photograph. Your photos are pretty enough, but on the whole not all that interesting. They would be good photos to hang on a well and look nice, nothing wrong with that. Floyd's photos would for the most part not be something that one would hand on a wall, at least not the ones he has on his web site. But many of the are interesting, at least showing me things I don't otherwise see. I have no problem Floyd's content, but given how small they are posted I think they should be super clean, not the mess that we see. Scott > I have no problem Floyd's content, but given how small they are posted > I think they should be super clean, not the mess that we see. LOL! I agree. There's no excuse for not trying to get the very best image quality possible for the given technology at the time. The content of Floyd's pictures does have interest because most of us will never see a whale being carved up. That said, I know Floyd is kicking himself in the a.s for not using film for these shots. Rita >NONSENSE! My Kodak DC280 was nowhere near what was even considered good for >that time and it still put out cleaner images. Your DC280, with a 2X optical zoom, isn't even near comparable to a Sony FD-91, which has a 14X zoom. >Lame excuse! You can definitely satisfy these requirements with a very >clear, crisp, and sharp 600x480. Wrong. The whole point is to *not* have "a very clear, crisp, and sharp" image. I realize that you can't understand the logic behind that... >> At some level of stupidity, posting technically >> "correct" images will simply destroy the purpose of the >> web page. > >What? This is beyond your level of stupidity! It is clearly well into your level of stupidity. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Your DC280, with a 2X optical zoom, isn't even near > comparable to a Sony FD-91, which has a 14X zoom. You're right. The Sony will lose every time. >> Your DC280, with a 2X optical zoom, isn't even near >> comparable to a Sony FD-91, which has a 14X zoom. > > You're right. The Sony will lose every time. Especially to my modified DC280. <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/pics/DC280.jpg> Rita >> NONSENSE! My Kodak DC280 was nowhere near what was even considered >> good for that time and it still put out cleaner images. > > Your DC280, with a 2X optical zoom, isn't even near > comparable to a Sony FD-91, which has a 14X zoom. You're right, even more reason for you not to be able to produce a better image. >> Lame excuse! You can definitely satisfy these requirements with a >> very clear, crisp, and sharp 600x480. > > Wrong. The whole point is to *not* have "a very clear, > crisp, and sharp" image. I realize that you can't > understand the logic behind that... LOL! It need be viewable. I guess that type of forward thinking and logic is simply tickling the testicle of common sense? Now stop you fucken' excuse making. >>> At some level of stupidity, posting technically >>> "correct" images will simply destroy the purpose of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It is clearly well into your level of stupidity. Not even close. My hound can produce better images than you with the DC280. Rita > Wrong. The whole point is to *not* have "a very clear, > crisp, and sharp" image. I realize that you can't > understand the logic behind that... No one can follow such logic. But then again, for someone who dismisses film as "low quality" and then produces such crap "digital" shots, what else can be expected... >> Wrong. The whole point is to *not* have "a very clear, >> crisp, and sharp" image. I realize that you can't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and then produces such crap "digital" shots, what > else can be expected... fu set. > I own a Canon 30D, and I've found it to be weak with white balance. I > started experimenting with custom white balance / grey card and have > been getting good results. > When I threw flash photography into the mix, my custom white balance > shots coloring were off again. I've tried taking reference shots with > and without flash then taking my custom white balance shots with flash > and ugliness ensues. > If I could get some helpful hints and a few how-to's I would be most > appreciative. > If I'm missing some info just let me know and I'd be glad to > supplement. I'm not sure about Canon, but the Nikon story goes like this: the direct sun setting is 5200K, and flash 5400K. This is a bit lower than daylight film, which is usually balanced to around 5500K. Using these settings gets you pretty close, and there's a control (on the D2x) to fine-tune the white balance in 200K increments. I'd be surprised if the Canon white balance is vastly different from this. So, if you set the white balance to flash and shoot a white card, is the result madly wrong? Andrew. On Dec 24, 6:02 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > > I own a Canon 30D, and I've found it to be weak with white balance. I > > started experimenting with custom white balance / grey card and have [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Andrew. i was missing something quite obvious - this is much of the simple answer i was looking for. so setting WB to flash and shooting the white card turned out much better than all my other custom WB tests. (i tried auto WB, tungsten, hallogen but not flash) big thanks! i'm also grateful for all other useful info herein. dave > When I threw flash photography into the mix, my custom white balance > shots coloring were off again. You need to WB under identical light situations, this _includes_ flash, and the distance the light has to travel from the flash to the object --- which can change if you move the flash unit(s). > If I could get some helpful hints and a few how-to's I would be most > appreciative. Mixed lights are hell for any kind of white balancing. If possible, avoid that situation: - choose apertures and exposure times that reduce the influence of non-flash light to at least 3 stops below the flash influence. Slave flashes can be very helpful there. - Change the non-flash light to be similar to the flash light. - Change the flash light to be similar to the non-flash light. The latter two can be archived by "gelling" the non-flash respective flash lights, i.e. putting correction filters in front of the flashes (quite easy) and/or windows, lightbulbs, etc. (can be quite hard, material and time eating --- and you may need permission). These filters will eat a bit light, as they block out e.g. the blue parts of the flash to a certain extent to make the flash match tungsten lighting. Here's one way to do it: http://www.shooting4joy.com/gallery/2881989 -Wolfgang In article <161425cd-08af-4cd5-bdb7-ba006dfe9fc4@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, > I own a Canon 30D, and I've found it to be weak with white balance. I > started experimenting with custom white balance / grey card and have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and without flash then taking my custom white balance shots with flash > and ugliness ensues. The basic starting point should be "Flash" or "Daylight" or 5500 if the flash if the main illumination. Then... 1. RAW, at least until you can experiment enough to work this out. 2. WhiBal... Seriously, I have found it terrific for getting the right white balance. Watch their tutorial on web site. 3. If you are shooting flash in a room with incancdescent (tungsten) lighting, then the flash will be very different color temp vs. the room lighting. Especially evident if you use Slow Sync, where the foregroudn will be illum by the flash and background by the room lights. I tend to set the white bal for flash, and let the (background) areas go red. All bets are off with most fluorescent lighting. Good luck. -=- Rick SignatureRichard Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Richard "at" Karash "dot" com > In article > <161425cd-08af-4cd5-bdb7-ba006dfe9fc4@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, >> I own a Canon 30D, and I've found it to be weak with white balance. I >> started experimenting with custom white balance / grey card and have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> and without flash then taking my custom white balance shots with flash >> and ugliness ensues. > The basic starting point should be "Flash" or "Daylight" or 5500 if the > flash if the main illumination. Then... > 1. RAW, at least until you can experiment enough to work this out. > 2. WhiBal... Seriously, I have found it terrific for getting the right > white balance. Watch their tutorial on web site. > 3. If you are shooting flash in a room with incancdescent (tungsten) > lighting, then the flash will be very different color temp vs. the room [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (background) areas go red. All bets are off with most fluorescent > lighting. Or gel the flash to the tungsten colour temperature and set camera to tungsten which completely removes all the problematic colour temp differential difficulties. The problems rear their heads again when you propose to flash in a room lit with a mix of tungsten and fluorescent, to which there is no simple colour matching solution apart from turning one set off and gelling the flash to the other's colour, pref the fluorescent because gel-matching for them is more complex. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
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.