A good point which I hadn't thought about. But if I'm doing white
balance from a (usually poorly lit) incandescent scene it's unlikely
that I'll want to give up 2 stops to the filter in the original
exposure. I just checked my last instance of that which happened to be
this past Saturday night. The three year-old granddaughter of a friend
sound asleep on the couch. Canon 5D, ISO 3200, Tokina 28-80/2.8 at 58mm
and f/2.8, hand held at 1/25 second. Already not terribly sharp due to
the slow shutter. An extra 2 stops would be out of the question. But a
tripod could have been used if one was readily available. The subject
wasn't going anywhere. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Wayne Harridge wrote:
> Same thing with white balance, if you let the camera do it (e.g. for
> tungsten lighting) the blue channel gets approximately 2 stops less
> light than the red, then when you boost the blue in raw conversion
> you pull in extra noise and also reduce your effective dynamic range
> by 2 stops. Better to use an 80A filter to get the WB at least close
> then just make small adjustments in post processing.
>
> ...Wayne
>
>
>> Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Trying to respond to this again... Don't you love mail client
>> programs that can't figure out the account an email is tied to?
>>
>> I'm personally a fan of on lens filters. First of all, I shoot
>> mixed formats and secondly the less bit-bending you have to do in
>> post the better. Sure, you can apply gradients in post, recover
>> highlights and even pull shadows up 14 stops, but in doing so you
>> lose color fidelity, tonal gradients and end up pulling shadow
>> noise up where it shouldn't be. With most digital files if you try
>> to recover the shadow too much you see a nasty shadow transition as
>> well as color shifts. Highlight recovery may also cause unusual
>> color shifts at the extremes in exposure.
>>
>> But my approach isn't an either or, but not being afraid of using
>> both techniques. Is there anything wrong with trying to get it
>> right in-camera? Of course not--provided that it isn't a hardship
>> to do so.
>>
>> Ag
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2010, Bob Whitmire <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>> You just don't blow out the sky. You know the drill: expose for
>>> the highlights, post process for the shadows. <g>
>>>
>>> Of course I don't recall now if we were talking film or digital,
>>> but if shooting digital, push that histogram all the way to the
>>> right-- after experimentation to see when stuff really does start
>>> getting blown out. It's my understanding that the histogram you
>>> see on the back of the camera is generated from the in-camera
>>> .jpg, and does not necessarily closely relate to the actual RAW
>>> file. Without experimentation, it's not terribly reliable. I've
>>> messed with the D3 enough now to pretty well tell when I've
>>> pushed to the limit. There is an incredible amount of information
>>> in those highlights that is recoverable with the proper
>>> post-processing approach.
>>>
>>> And watch that "fake filter" talk, Bub. <g> ACR's graduated
>>> filter is no more fake than a piece of glass hung out in front of
>>> your lens. It's just different.
>>>
>>> --Bob Whitmire www.bobwhitmire.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 1, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Sue Pearce wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If you use ACR, you've got a built-in grad filter that's
>>>>> infinitely customizable. Add the gradient feature in
>>>>> Photoshop and you can
>> leave
>>>>> the filters at home. Not necessary.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm having trouble understanding how this is suitable. If a sky
>>>> is blown out, no amount of curves or fake filters can get info
>>>> that was never there.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Pearce
>>> --
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/ Themed
>>> Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>
>>>
>> -- Ken Norton ken@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.zone-10.com --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
> ...Wayne
>
> Wayne Harridge
>
> http://lrh.structuregraphs.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|