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
  #21  
Old April 18th 08, 05:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Chris Savage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default D3 and Filters

On 2008-04-18, Tully Albrecht wrote:
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/


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.


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.


Or ignore the fluorescents, shoot for the daylight, fill with a little
strobe...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3225/2423635236_9997b5ab70_o.jpg
Works just as well with digital as film.


--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
  #22  
Old April 18th 08, 07:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Chris Savage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default D3 and Filters

On 2008-04-18, Rita Berkowitz wrote:
C J Campbell wrote:

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.


Well said! I'm glad you were paying attention when I was holding class.


You know, one of these days, you really should get round to typing some
of these imaginary conversations in your head into usenet. You've still
to provide something, anything, to justify your claim that white-balance
can foul up exposure.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
  #23  
Old April 19th 08, 02:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,272
Default D3 and Filters

On 2008-04-18 04:41:51 -0700, "Rita Berkowitz" said:

C J Campbell wrote:

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.


Well said! I'm glad you were paying attention when I was holding class.





Rita


Actually, I was paying attention when Peter Ellis was holding class.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

  #24  
Old April 19th 08, 09:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Father Kodak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 168
Default D3 and Filters

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:40:53 -0700, Tully Albrecht
wrote:

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.


All very fine IF you can turn off the offending tubes and bring in
your own lights. What if you are in a situation where you can't!?
Probably means setting a custom WB, perhaps filtration, and perhaps
even some post-processing.

Or, you simply accept the fact that colors won't be 100% good
throughout your entire image. Depending on the kind of image, that
may be acceptable, particularly with the "legacy" of "funny colors"
with film photographs.



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?


Father Kodak
  #25  
Old April 20th 08, 12:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,272
Default D3 and Filters

On 2008-04-19 13:36:03 -0700, "Rita Berkowitz" said:

C J Campbell wrote:

Well said! I'm glad you were paying attention when I was holding
class.


Actually, I was paying attention when Peter Ellis was holding class.


No wonder, you should have been paying attention to Peter Sellers.


Swine photographeur. Any more behavior like this and I'll have your stripes!





Rita



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

  #26  
Old April 20th 08, 04:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default D3 and Filters

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:33:14 -0700, nospam wrote:
: In article
: , Doug
: Jewell wrote:
:
: BTW - if you are planning on doing B&W, then I'd suggest
: still using your B&W contrast filters. Photoshop can emulate
: them but the result just isn't the same.
:
: that's a bad idea. due to the bayer pattern, using a colour filter
: will adversely affect the resolution of the sensor.
:
: plus, photoshop can duplicate what the filter would have done and a
: whole lot more, including selectively applying various filters to
: different parts of the image.

And all the B&W filters except yellow are dark enough to cost you a stop or
two, which could adversely affect autofocus.

Bob
  #27  
Old April 20th 08, 05:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default D3 and Filters

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:51:56 -0700, 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.
:
: 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.

I just don't believe that. You'd have to prove it by reliably identifying
software vs hardware correction in a statistically significant sample of
pictures you didn't take.

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

But here I think you're absolutely right. No one can correctly assess ambient
color temperature unaided. The WB correction of the human eye, which cannot be
effectively defeated, is just too good to allow it. When a photographer walks
into a room, his perception of the color temperature depends strongly on the
color temperature of the room he just walked out of. And the longer he stays
in the room, the less reliable his perception becomes.

Fluorescents are particularly tricky, probably because their "white" light is
composed of relatively few discrete frequencies. The very concept of "color
temperature" breaks down in that environment. To get the WB exactly right in
software, you'd have to know the frequencies and their relative strengths. But
to do it with a filter may well be impossible.

Bob
  #28  
Old April 20th 08, 05:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default D3 and Filters

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:36:03 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
wrote:
: C J Campbell wrote:
:
: Well said! I'm glad you were paying attention when I was holding
: class.
:
: Actually, I was paying attention when Peter Ellis was holding class.
:
: No wonder, you should have been paying attention to Peter Sellers.

Rita is starting to gibber. If someone lives nearby, an intervention may be in
order.

Bob
  #29  
Old December 12th 12, 01:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Andrew Haley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 141
Default D3 and Filters

nospam wrote:
In article
, Doug
Jewell wrote:


BTW - if you are planning on doing B&W, then I'd suggest
still using your B&W contrast filters. Photoshop can emulate
them but the result just isn't the same.


that's a bad idea. due to the bayer pattern, using a colour filter
will adversely affect the resolution of the sensor.


plus, photoshop can duplicate what the filter would have done and a
whole lot more, including selectively applying various filters to
different parts of the image.

 




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 09:22 AM.


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.