A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

D3 and Filters



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 17th 08, 11:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Chris Savage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default D3 and Filters

On 2008-04-17, C J Campbell wrote:
Neither is it possible to correct white balance in software and get the
same results as getting white balance right in the first place. You can
sometimes get pretty close, but it is definitely not the same.


Can you tell me why you say this is, please? I can't find any reason to
believe that I can't fix my white balance in post-process.

http://savvo.wordpress.com/2008/04/1...-in-raw-files/

Obviously, I'm missing something, but nobody has told me what yet. I'll
happily publish my raw files for anyone to show where any loss of
quality is occurring.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
  #12  
Old April 17th 08, 11:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default D3 and Filters

C J Campbell wrote:

I am well aware that there are plenty of software filters out there and
I use them. I think Nikon's filter plug-ins for Capture NX are even
better than these guys. However, software cannot always replicate the
effect of real filters, especially when using spot gels or mixed
lighting.


You are correct in reference to using filters in front
of light sources, but not as far as filters in front of
the lense. Filtering lights to find the right match is
very much just as effective with digital as with film.

Neither is it possible to correct white balance in software and get the
same results as getting white balance right in the first place. You can
sometimes get pretty close, but it is definitely not the same.


That is simply not correct. With software you *can* get
it exact, and with on the lense filters you cannot.

Light filtering technology is no where near that good,
nor is it adjustable. Software manipulation is both.
But what you cannot easily do with software is exactly
emulate any given filter! That is because it is rather
difficult to determine exactly what tolerances and
faults the filter has. If you actually go to the
trouble to measure it, adjusting software to match would
be easy. Of course every brand and model of filter is
different...

There is a huge difference between approximating an effect in software
and nailing it in the original image.


Well, relatively, yes that is true. But it is *much*
easier for the average (or even extremely talented)
photographer to nail it with software than it is to
find a way to nail it with filters.

You are assuming the filter is exactly correct, and
trying to duplicate its imperfections. That _is_ hard.
But getting it correct, with digital, is easier.

I know there are photographers
who think they are artists and that they can 'feel' the color
temperature, or that they can walk into a room and tell you what the
white balance should be. I am not one of them. Furthermore, I think
that guys who claim they can 'feel' the color temperature are deluded.
I have never seen one of them who actually could get the white balance
right in tricky lighting situations, or even in an ordinary office with
fluorescent ceiling panels.


We agree 100% on that!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #13  
Old April 18th 08, 01:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,272
Default D3 and Filters

On 2008-04-17 15:14:35 -0700, Chris Savage
said:

On 2008-04-17, C J Campbell wrote:
Neither is it possible to correct white balance in software and get the
same results as getting white balance right in the first place. You can
sometimes get pretty close, but it is definitely not the same.


Can you tell me why you say this is, please? I can't find any reason to
believe that I can't fix my white balance in post-process.

http://savvo.wordpress.com/2008/04/1...-in-raw-files/

Obviously, I'm missing something, but nobody has told me what yet. I'll
happily publish my raw files for anyone to show where any loss of
quality is occurring.


Yep, you are missing something. Your ducks are all lit by the same
light, so adjusting white balance in Photoshop is easy.

Now, consider a picture such as that taken by Joe McNally on p. 66 of
"The Moment It Clicks." Twilight sky in background, basketball player
sitting on basketball under a sodium vapor street lamp, lit from the
front by an open subway door through which you see a lot of fluorescent
light. Let's see you fix that in Photoshop. Typically what you will get
is exactly as Joe describes it: an image that looks like it was shot
through an aquarium that hasn't been cleaned in awhile. You can play
with the white balance on the camera or in Photoshop until the cows
come home and it still will not look right.

Somehow you have to get all these light sources to work together. You
want the basketball player to have good skin tones. You want his socks
white. You want the background sky to have a gorgeous sunset tone. You
want the subway car interior to look realistic.

Or you can simply put full green filters on your strobes and a #30
magenta filter on your lens. Works every time. And you don't have to
spend all day in front of your computer. Instead, you can go out and
take more pictures.

If you are a pro, every minute spent in post-processing costs you
money, no matter how good you are at it. That computer is eating your
profits, especially in today's extremely competitive market. Get the
shot right the first time.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

  #15  
Old April 18th 08, 03:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Father Kodak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 168
Default D3 and Filters

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:00:26 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article upHNj.9322$XF3.7656@trnddc04, Mike -- Email Ignored
wrote:

Now that I have a D3, which has all sorts of
color corrections in its electronics, do I
still have a use for the myriad colored
filters I have collected?


in general, the only filters you need are a circular polarizer and
neutral density filter. coloured filter effects can be done much more
effectively in photoshop.


And what about graduated neutral density filters, to correct
over-contrast in landscapes, for example?

Father Kodak
  #16  
Old April 18th 08, 03:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default D3 and Filters

In article , Father Kodak
wrote:

in general, the only filters you need are a circular polarizer and
neutral density filter. coloured filter effects can be done much more
effectively in photoshop.


And what about graduated neutral density filters, to correct
over-contrast in landscapes, for example?


that would fall under the neutral density filter category

however, taking a few photos and combining them into an hdr is an
option.
  #17  
Old April 18th 08, 03:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,525
Default D3 and Filters

nospam wrote:
In article , Father Kodak
wrote:

in general, the only filters you need are a circular polarizer and
neutral density filter. coloured filter effects can be done much more
effectively in photoshop.

And what about graduated neutral density filters, to correct
over-contrast in landscapes, for example?


that would fall under the neutral density filter category

however, taking a few photos and combining them into an hdr is an
option.

For practical purposes, even grad NDs are less useful these days - given
the possibility to push exposure from one properly exposed (to save
highlights) low iso raw file.
You don't need HDR, just gradient blends using masks, or much simpler
and better, just by using Capture NX properly.
I still carry grad nds with me, but seldom use them.
  #18  
Old April 18th 08, 03:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default D3 and Filters

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2008-04-17 15:23:37 -0700, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

C J Campbell wrote:
I am well aware that there are plenty of software
filters out there and
I use them. I think Nikon's filter plug-ins for Capture NX are even
better than these guys. However, software cannot always replicate the
effect of real filters, especially when using spot gels or mixed
lighting.

You are correct in reference to using filters in front
of light sources, but not as far as filters in front of
the lense. Filtering lights to find the right match is
very much just as effective with digital as with film.


So you are saying that shooting a scene with green gels on the strobes
and a #30 magenta on the lens will give the same effect as shooting
with green gels on the strobes and a #30 magenta in Photoshop? Even if
the subject is sitting under a sodium vapor streetlight in front of a
subway car with the doors wide open and fluorescent light streaming out
of them, with a post-sunset twilit background over the city?


No. I'm saying that a #30 magenta filter is not
perfect, and that doing the exact same thing with
Photoshop will be closer to perfect.

Which is to say that it would not be exactly the same.
However, it isn't hard to make it *vastly* better using
Photoshop.

That is because the WB for any given number of pixels
can be adjusted totally separate from all other pixels.
You can't do that with a filter in front of the lense.
If it gets the area illuminated by the sodium vapor
light, it also gets the area lit by sunlight, by an
overhead incandescent light or by a fluorescent light.

But with Photoshop each of those (and three more if
necessary) can be individually adjusted. And that can
include individually adjusting areas that have light from
two or more sources.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

  #19  
Old April 18th 08, 03:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Chris Savage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default D3 and Filters

On 2008-04-18, C J Campbell wrote:
On 2008-04-17 15:14:35 -0700, Chris Savage
said:

On 2008-04-17, C J Campbell wrote:
Neither is it possible to correct white balance in software and get the
same results as getting white balance right in the first place. You can
sometimes get pretty close, but it is definitely not the same.


Can you tell me why you say this is, please? I can't find any reason to
believe that I can't fix my white balance in post-process.

http://savvo.wordpress.com/2008/04/1...-in-raw-files/

Obviously, I'm missing something, but nobody has told me what yet. I'll
happily publish my raw files for anyone to show where any loss of
quality is occurring.


Yep, you are missing something. Your ducks are all lit by the same
light, so adjusting white balance in Photoshop is easy.

[...]

Somehow you have to get all these light sources to work together. You
want the basketball player to have good skin tones. You want his socks
white. You want the background sky to have a gorgeous sunset tone. You
want the subway car interior to look realistic.

Or you can simply put full green filters on your strobes and a #30
magenta filter on your lens. Works every time. And you don't have to
spend all day in front of your computer. Instead, you can go out and
take more pictures.


OK, sorry. So you're talking about balancing mixed light temperatures. That
wasn't clear to me, and in that case you are, of course right that it's
only feasible to fix that at shooting time. Although _exactly_ matching
your filters to your lighting temperatures is going to take more time
and equipment than is available on any shoot I've ever been on.

Apologies for bringing up the wrong issue, but your original statement
above ("Neither is it possible...") makes no mention of the
mixed-lighting situation.

On the question I was addressing (incorrect WB fundamentally frigs
exposure) I'd still like to know what the holes in my method and results
are. The silence, so far, is deafening.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
  #20  
Old April 18th 08, 04:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Tully Albrecht
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default D3 and Filters

On 2008-04-18 07:25:58 -0700, Chris Savage
said:

On 2008-04-18, C J Campbell wrote:
On 2008-04-17 15:14:35 -0700, Chris Savage
said:

On 2008-04-17, C J Campbell wrote:
Neither is it possible to correct white balance in software and get the
same results as getting white balance right in the first place. You can
sometimes get pretty close, but it is definitely not the same.

Can you tell me why you say this is, please? I can't find any reason to
believe that I can't fix my white balance in post-process.

http://savvo.wordpress.com/2008/04/1...-in-raw-files/

Obviously, I'm missing something, but nobody has told me what yet. I'll
happily publish my raw files for anyone to show where any loss of
quality is occurring.


Yep, you are missing something. Your ducks are all lit by the same
light, so adjusting white balance in Photoshop is easy.

[...]

Somehow you have to get all these light sources to work together. You
want the basketball player to have good skin tones. You want his socks
white. You want the background sky to have a gorgeous sunset tone. You
want the subway car interior to look realistic.

Or you can simply put full green filters on your strobes and a #30
magenta filter on your lens. Works every time. And you don't have to
spend all day in front of your computer. Instead, you can go out and
take more pictures.


OK, sorry. So you're talking about balancing mixed light temperatures. That
wasn't clear to me, and in that case you are, of course right that it's
only feasible to fix that at shooting time. Although _exactly_ matching
your filters to your lighting temperatures is going to take more time
and equipment than is available on any shoot I've ever been on.

Apologies for bringing up the wrong issue, but your original statement
above ("Neither is it possible...") makes no mention of the
mixed-lighting situation.

On the question I was addressing (incorrect WB fundamentally frigs
exposure) I'd still like to know what the holes in my method and results
are. The silence, so far, is deafening.


The wild card in all of this is fluorescent. In the days b.d.c. (before
digital capture) we futzed around with compensating filters for
avoiding the corpse-like hues in skin tones under office-type lighting.

I had a light box with Grow-Lux lights (in a studio) that actually did
a nice job on Caucasian skin, but the real problem comes from a mix of
fluorescent tubes of various color temps. Commercial buildings often
mix "cool white" with "warm white" or whatever they're officially
branded, and then as they age you end up with a whole spectrum of
(typically quite nasty) illumination. Trying to use filtration to tame
that beast is a fool's errand. Much better to turn off the ceiling
lights, try to get at least some window light in there, use strobes
with bounce/diffusion, and shoot daylight film.

For the problem posed by the OP, I would rely heavily on Photoshop for
selective (not global) color correction. Why hang more glass in front
of a digital camera than you have to?
--
"Man's impetus should exceed his detritus."

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB/WTT Filters Dieter Zakas General Equipment For Sale 2 June 24th 05 06:33 PM
Filters Sameer Agarwal Other Photographic Equipment 4 March 27th 05 07:57 AM
UV filters LtX4 Digital Photography 0 January 12th 05 09:43 AM
Filters jjs Large Format Photography Equipment 1 October 8th 04 01:38 PM
Filters Dallas 35mm Photo Equipment 2 August 3rd 04 03:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.