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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
D3 and Filters
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 08:43 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 |