D7000 and a 40Mz3i.

On 2012-04-10 03:14 , Trevor wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
...
On 2012-04-09 14:52 , charles wrote:
I've seen books where they use italics and bold print.

One measure of well written text is that it is so clear in emotive tension
that no typographical emphasis is needed.

Let us know when you start so I can take notes :-)

I haven't seen
how to do that on usenet.

/really/ ?
*surely*
_you jest_

So only alternatives suitable for you are allowed, what was it you were

I was just showing him how to do those three typical text modifiers.
Used (with restraint) they are far better than all caps.

saying about the usenet being for anyone? I sometimes use the second one,
the other two are unclear as to their intent IMO.

italics, bold, underline. Use as appropriate. (There are style guides
out there).

But the point us for Trevor's case, emphasis was not needed to understand
what he was saying.

Glad to hear it. But you get to choose your own emphasis, not mine.

As long as it's not all-cap words. Quite annoying that.


--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-04-10 03:21 , Trevor wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
...
Grey cards are nice but any neutral tone from dark grey to white will do
for the WB function.

And knowing it is neutral under different lighting conditions is a
requirement, but I can't see any reason I would not want a useful exposure
guide at the same time as WB in any case. A card with Black, White and 18%
grey is a useful thing to have in tricky lighting situations IMO.

I haven't run into a situation where I couldn't get correct exposure and
reasonable color in camera. Once there, ACR does the rest better than
any field test or measurement. (I'm not talking about specialties such
as color accurate photography).

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-04-10 03:25 , Trevor wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
...

http://michaeltapesdesign.com/whibal.html

Incredibly expensive - at any price.

Eh, $20 for the pocket card is incredibly expensive, but $1000 for a meter
is not?

I can cut a grey reference from used 18% BG paper if I need it. Cost is
zero since it is material being discarded. Same for white and black.

A color meter on the other hand is essential for color correct product
photography where light source temperature needs to be accurate and CC
filters are used to correct for cast. Not something you will attain
with a white/grey/card. You just can't do that on the cheap.

That said such a meter is not in my arsenal whereas I've gone through 3
incident meters over the years. Current one will hopefully be my last
(and wish I had never sold the first).

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Right, you use what you have. I'd rather not resort to HTML, *that* would
be

Ironic how you just used the de-facto emphasis for bold in your sentence

If you'd actually taken any notice, rather than just whining, you'd know I
have used both for many years, and will continue to do so as I see
appropriate. You have a kill file if it bothers you so much. Feel free to
use it :-)

Oh wait, you probably hate emoticons too, now I'm worried, NOT! :-)

Trevor.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2012-04-10 03:25 , Trevor wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
...

http://michaeltapesdesign.com/whibal.html

Incredibly expensive - at any price.

Eh, $20 for the pocket card is incredibly expensive, but $1000 for a
meter
is not?

I can cut a grey reference from used 18% BG paper if I need it. Cost is
zero since it is material being discarded.

There's your problem. In another post you complain that they are not
accurate under different lighting conditions. Any old paper does not have a
flat spectral response.

A color meter on the other hand is essential for color correct product
photography where light source temperature needs to be accurate and CC
filters are used to correct for cast. Not something you will attain with
a white/grey/card. You just can't do that on the cheap.

Of course you can. Wile I use CC filters for film, not for digital. And we
were discussing digital.

That said such a meter is not in my arsenal

Right, mine either.

Trevor.

On 2012-04-10 18:02 , Trevor wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
...
Right, you use what you have. I'd rather not resort to HTML, *that* would
be

Ironic how you just used the de-facto emphasis for bold in your sentence

If you'd actually taken any notice, rather than just whining, you'd know I
have used both for many years, and will continue to do so as I see
appropriate. You have a kill file if it bothers you so much. Feel free to
use it :-)

Oh wait, you probably hate emoticons too, now I'm worried, NOT! :-)

You're quite amusing and easily riled, but I've entered the ennui phase
of this thread.


--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news
You're quite amusing and easily riled,

You think someone making jokes is "riled". You really are out of touch with
reality.

but I've entered the ennui phase of this thread.

I'm going to enter the gone phase instead, bye.

Trevor.

On 2012-04-10 18:12 , Trevor wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
...
On 2012-04-10 03:25 , Trevor wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
...

http://michaeltapesdesign.com/whibal.html

Incredibly expensive - at any price.

Eh, $20 for the pocket card is incredibly expensive, but $1000 for a
meter
is not?

I can cut a grey reference from used 18% BG paper if I need it. Cost is
zero since it is material being discarded.

There's your problem. In another post you complain that they are not
accurate under different lighting conditions. Any old paper does not have a
flat spectral response.

Actually in stating that the variance was about a stop across 3 grey
cards it was for the same lighting conditions. IOW for 3 different 18%
grey references - one was right. Maybe.

Rolls of bg paper (usually used for small studio and table top) work
come in various colors. But the black, white and grey are color
neutral. From meter readings, the grey paper I have is about 1/2 stop
off of my incident meter (incident meter is allegedly 12% in any case).
On the other hand, my Minolta incident meter was about 1/2 stop
different from the Sekonic. There is more variance here than you would
expect. (A man with two watches...).

IAC, I usually expose digital like slide film. For my camera that comes
out to about +2.3 EV as the highlight point.

A color meter on the other hand is essential for color correct product
photography where light source temperature needs to be accurate and CC
filters are used to correct for cast. Not something you will attain with
a white/grey/card. You just can't do that on the cheap.

Of course you can. Wile I use CC filters for film, not for digital. And we
were discussing digital.

Commercial product photographers are still using CC in some
circumstances even for digital. If it was claimed to be less than for
film I wouldn't be very surprised though.

That said such a meter is not in my arsenal

Right, mine either.

Trevor.




--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

A color meter on the other hand is essential for color correct product
photography where light source temperature needs to be accurate and CC
filters are used to correct for cast. Not something you will attain with
a white/grey/card. You just can't do that on the cheap.

Of course you can. Wile I use CC filters for film, not for digital. And we
were discussing digital.

Commercial product photographers are still using CC in some
circumstances even for digital. If it was claimed to be less than for
film I wouldn't be very surprised though.


CC makes sense for digital. You want to use CC filters such that the the
_RAW_ RGB histograms are all roughly the same. In even slightly "warm"
tungsten lighting, your blue channel is so far down that you are going to
have find youeself with nasty noise in it unless you bring down the red
channel a lot.

I don't think anyone actually does, though. They just color balance after
the fact and wonder why their blue, and even green, channels are so noisy
and/or why the red channel's blown out.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 2012-04-11 05:26 , David J. Littleboy wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

A color meter on the other hand is essential for color correct product
photography where light source temperature needs to be accurate and CC
filters are used to correct for cast. Not something you will attain with
a white/grey/card. You just can't do that on the cheap.

Of course you can. Wile I use CC filters for film, not for digital.
And we
were discussing digital.

Commercial product photographers are still using CC in some
circumstances even for digital. If it was claimed to be less than for
film I wouldn't be very surprised though.


CC makes sense for digital. You want to use CC filters such that the the
_RAW_ RGB histograms are all roughly the same. In even slightly "warm"
tungsten lighting, your blue channel is so far down that you are going
to have find youeself with nasty noise in it unless you bring down the
red channel a lot.

I don't think anyone actually does, though. They just color balance

That's why I said I wouldn't be surprised. But I do bet the most
quality conscience product photographers are paying attention and using
CCFs.

after the fact and wonder why their blue, and even green, channels are
so noisy and/or why the red channel's blown out.

I was going to bring up red channel - it's my worst enemy in the studio
when I use red gels on lights or when there is a red light in the scene.
Really needs a lot of attention to get right.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.