A&P Finally messed around with custom white balance, C&C?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by coughlin's law, Dec 27, 2007.

  1. Sigma 10-20mm @ 20mm
    TV: 0.6 sec
    AV: F/5.6
    ISO: 100
    Metering: Pattern

    Hopefully I did ok with the color and everything...

    [​IMG]
     
  2. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    just shoot raw, you won't need to worry about wb
     
  3. Joetabasco

    Joetabasco The Wing King

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,523
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    I'm in ur cube, eatin' ur wings!!
    If you are gonna shoot Model cars, go with F16-22... but as far as the WB goes... looks to be dead on!
     
  4. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    looks underexposed...
     
  5. Cobber

    Cobber Wanna touch my bunny hole?

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    13,732
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    :canada:
    And maybe wipe them off pre-photo

    WB is good though
     
  6. SenenCito

    SenenCito OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    15,530
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    New York, NY


    Im sorry but thats just about the worst advice ever..
    And not all wrong WB can be fixed in RAW, trust me fluorescent can be tricky.

    learn to take the pictures right from the camera people
     
  7. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    you sure about that? when i shoot raw, my white balance settings are not carried over to my raw converter
     
  8. Dwight Schrute

    Dwight Schrute New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    8,616
    Likes Received:
    0
    A RAW file is just raw sensor data, without any camera settings applied. You can set the white balance to whatever you want in post with a RAW file. If you think you can't you're doing it wrong. You're not "fixing" the white balance, because it was never applied to the raw sensor data to begin with.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2007
  9. Jhegro

    Jhegro wtf is a jhegro?

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago

    flourecent is a beyotch cause of the greenish hue AND the stupid cycling of the lights. i dont understand people that say that RAW is the only mode they shoot in. what a huge pain in the ass.
     
  10. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    a year ago I would have agreed with you.
     
  11. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    yea I'm gonna have to agree here....SenenCito---getting it right in the camera just doesn't apply to wb imo. ever shoot color film and make prints yourself? adjusting the colors is a huge part of it and thats basically white balance.
     
  12. Jhegro

    Jhegro wtf is a jhegro?

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    dont get me wrong, RAW is very useful where you dont wanna blow a shot. but in instances where u've already set the wb for an unwaivering light source, there really isnt a HUGE need for RAW.
     
  13. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    theres a lot of nice adjustments you can make in raw without losing any quality. exposure issues, saving details in highlights, plus (this one's for OT) you can generally get more detail (read:sharpness) out of them
     
  14. SenenCito

    SenenCito OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    15,530
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    New York, NY
    whoops guess I mistook my reason for lighting, but for most situations my point still stands shooting properly from the start > having to do PP and depending on RAW

    Hell if you ask me (and i know this will sound weird) depending on RAW shooting is for lazy photographers
     
  15. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    its nice to get a good shot right out of the camera, but there are some adjustments that are really only available after the shot is taken. i really prefer to reduce noise, mess with contrast, and sharpen in raw. maybe its just the subjects...i have done a lot of indoor shows where the light color and intensity can change in a matter of seconds which doesn't leave much time during the shoot to fix shit like white balance and a lot of the time I will rely on the raw data to save some improperly exposed shots. I don't think its lazy, I think its doing whatever it takes to get the final result
     
  16. NSX

    NSX OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    8,942
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    none yo'

    Taking a few seconds to adjust for WB before shooting in JPG > shooting RAW and having to spend several minutes adjusting for WB in post-processing
     
  17. SenenCito

    SenenCito OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    15,530
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Hmm you make a good point, ill definitly give you that.

    At least in my experience I havent found something I cant fix in jpg..only time I shoot raw is when im shooting for full page or big prints..hello I did a cd cover all in jpg and one of the photos was used for this huge ass banner

    dont know if you can see it, but here is the example
    [​IMG]

    One thing though, now that I have the d300 I read that 14bit pictures only work in raw..so im guessing that will indeed provide a very tangible effect on the quality, I plan to test it soon
     
  18. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    I was arguing with that shatner douche about it before, my point was with great software like lightroom etc there is no point not to shoot raw, it doesn't take the effort + time that it used to, and the cataloging features + extra depth + adjustability are worth their weight in gold :dunno:
     
  19. SenenCito

    SenenCito OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    15,530
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Well for soem photographers, but for example let me put you my usual situation.. I shoot a concert or a social event, the pictures have to be at the client's desk early in the morning, usually I just import delete the ones I dont want, write down the names of the people ive shot and then copy to disc..I can't do this for that because I have to convert to jpg for every shot, lots of time wasted .

    Thats just one example really but im sure you understand
     
  20. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    sure, I can understand that. When am browsing through the photos to cull the useless ones I can perform any adjustments (quick in LR etc because they are all right there as sliders to the right of the photo) and then export all the photos to jpg. I find that it produces much better results with raw + minor pp and the time is pretty negligible.
     

Share This Page