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
|
|||
|
|||
"Renee" wrote in message m...
"Mike Henley" wrote in message om... Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor) Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent) You don't seem to quite understand what this test means. This is a test of using Canon's AUTO white balance, the AWB, accessed through the function menu. It is *not* the results of simply, as you say "the white balance test". It is the AUTO white balance test. The reviewer doesn't show the results of using the other various white balance PRESETS. The presets are choices such as Daylight, Fluorescent, Tungsten, Cloudy, etc. Although I have entirely different type of Canon, on my Canon the AWB setting makes my photos come out a little more orange. When I use the TUNGSTEN preset indoors, not AWB, the photo color comes out fine. I'd guess that the Canon 20D D-SLR has settings similar to my Canon SLR-type model. Even I know (as one who doesn't know much about cameras) that you have to experiment with some of the settings instead of just using AUTOMATIC mode for everything. I fully understood that this was the AWB when I posted, but what you don't seem to understand is that there is no universal "tungsten" or "fluorescent" light situation that a preset will get right all the time. Each light pulp is different; a different intensity of tungsten or fluorescent or whatever or even a mixture of more than one light source in the situation. Even when you do a custom/manual white balance in-camera in-situ, or even if you do it in post-processing using a white object in the image, there's rarely ever a decidedly "white" thing in reality. You can use a white balance slider afterwards in post-processing to correct it, but then it'd be different for each lighting situation or angle on a lighting situation, and you'd be messing with something that could've and should've been gotten right the first time, at a great expense of time, and you'll be doing it to your liking rather than how it *really* is, which to me means that you just won't be getting it right no matter how "fine" it looks unless it's exactly like the natural. In my experience, and I've been testing this over the past week between an HP camera and a major japanese manufacturer's camera that's much more expensive and I got with the intention of upgrading to it from the HP but now won't be keeping, if a camera won't get it right in the auto setting it won't get it right with a preset either. Now you may get it to "come out fine", but "fine" is not good enough, and especially when you put images from the two cameras next to each other (I could show you the images if you want to), and, quite importantly, especially when you're dealing with skintones. I will not have any respect for a camera that can't get skintones right, and will make me have to go through sliders, curves, histograms, and swatches for each individual image when another much cheaper cameara will just get them consistently right time after time and regardless of light source. (yes, there's more to skintones than just white balance, but white balance is one thing that shouldn't be screwed up) The HP too has presets and manual/custom if you wish to switch off auto and use those, but it also has an auto white balance that DOES work, eventhough it's budget-priced even for a P&S. The Canon 20D doesn't, and Canon should be totally ashamed of that, and no bull**** excuses from the Canon apologists will do. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Renee" wrote in message m...
"Mike Henley" wrote in message om... Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor) Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent) You don't seem to quite understand what this test means. This is a test of using Canon's AUTO white balance, the AWB, accessed through the function menu. It is *not* the results of simply, as you say "the white balance test". It is the AUTO white balance test. The reviewer doesn't show the results of using the other various white balance PRESETS. The presets are choices such as Daylight, Fluorescent, Tungsten, Cloudy, etc. Although I have entirely different type of Canon, on my Canon the AWB setting makes my photos come out a little more orange. When I use the TUNGSTEN preset indoors, not AWB, the photo color comes out fine. I'd guess that the Canon 20D D-SLR has settings similar to my Canon SLR-type model. Even I know (as one who doesn't know much about cameras) that you have to experiment with some of the settings instead of just using AUTOMATIC mode for everything. I fully understood that this was the AWB when I posted, but what you don't seem to understand is that there is no universal "tungsten" or "fluorescent" light situation that a preset will get right all the time. Each light pulp is different; a different intensity of tungsten or fluorescent or whatever or even a mixture of more than one light source in the situation. Even when you do a custom/manual white balance in-camera in-situ, or even if you do it in post-processing using a white object in the image, there's rarely ever a decidedly "white" thing in reality. You can use a white balance slider afterwards in post-processing to correct it, but then it'd be different for each lighting situation or angle on a lighting situation, and you'd be messing with something that could've and should've been gotten right the first time, at a great expense of time, and you'll be doing it to your liking rather than how it *really* is, which to me means that you just won't be getting it right no matter how "fine" it looks unless it's exactly like the natural. In my experience, and I've been testing this over the past week between an HP camera and a major japanese manufacturer's camera that's much more expensive and I got with the intention of upgrading to it from the HP but now won't be keeping, if a camera won't get it right in the auto setting it won't get it right with a preset either. Now you may get it to "come out fine", but "fine" is not good enough, and especially when you put images from the two cameras next to each other (I could show you the images if you want to), and, quite importantly, especially when you're dealing with skintones. I will not have any respect for a camera that can't get skintones right, and will make me have to go through sliders, curves, histograms, and swatches for each individual image when another much cheaper cameara will just get them consistently right time after time and regardless of light source. (yes, there's more to skintones than just white balance, but white balance is one thing that shouldn't be screwed up) The HP too has presets and manual/custom if you wish to switch off auto and use those, but it also has an auto white balance that DOES work, eventhough it's budget-priced even for a P&S. The Canon 20D doesn't, and Canon should be totally ashamed of that, and no bull**** excuses from the Canon apologists will do. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Bryce" wrote in message ...
You need to type less and do a little bit more research. I've done more than a "little bit" of research and I've been experimenting with actual cameras over the past week. You need to type a little more and make sense. "Mike Henley" wrote in message om... Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor) Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Bryce" wrote in message ...
You need to type less and do a little bit more research. I've done more than a "little bit" of research and I've been experimenting with actual cameras over the past week. You need to type a little more and make sense. "Mike Henley" wrote in message om... Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor) Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael A. Covington" wrote in message ...
"Renee" wrote in message ... You don't seem to quite understand what this test means. This is a test of using Canon's AUTO white balance, the AWB, accessed through the function menu. It is *not* the results of simply, as you say "the white balance test". It is the AUTO white balance test. The reviewer doesn't show the results of using the other various white balance PRESETS. The presets are choices such as Daylight, Fluorescent, Tungsten, Cloudy, etc. Sounds like HP simply chose to allow the camera to make much larger changes in automatic mode. That is something that would annoy a professional photographer, though it's handy for casual snapshooting. The pro would want the automatic changes to be relatively small so as not to produce unexpected results. This doesn't make any sense at all. Auto white balance can be switched off if needed but when it's working it should actually work as expected. Yes, a professional photographer really enjoys a poorly performing and practically useless ***Auto*** white balance (sarcastic). Here's the deal, everything you can do with the images from a camera that gets auto white balance wrong you can still do with the images from a camera that gets it right; the difference is that with one you have something that is correct and natural by default and if you want to deviate from the correct and natural for a particular image then you can, but with the other you have screwed up skintones and you'll have to laboriously mess and waste time with each individual image in post-processing to get it the way you think it should be, and even that wouldn't be good enough compared to how it really was. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Jaxak" wrote in message ...
My Ferrari does not have a traction control, so the wheels spin if I his the gas pedal too much. Friends BMW has it, shame shame on you Ferrari. Because this is a photoforum, I should also add that I don't own a digital camera, because I'm too stupid to use it May you should stay out of it then because your analogy doesn't apply to the topic. "Mike Henley" wrote in message om... Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor) Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Jaxak" wrote in message ...
My Ferrari does not have a traction control, so the wheels spin if I his the gas pedal too much. Friends BMW has it, shame shame on you Ferrari. Because this is a photoforum, I should also add that I don't own a digital camera, because I'm too stupid to use it May you should stay out of it then because your analogy doesn't apply to the topic. "Mike Henley" wrote in message om... Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor) Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
wow!
actual cameras! "Mike Henley" wrote in message om... "Bryce" wrote in message ... You need to type less and do a little bit more research. I've done more than a "little bit" of research and I've been experimenting with actual cameras over the past week. You need to type a little more and make sense. "Mike Henley" wrote in message om... Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor) Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
wow!
actual cameras! "Mike Henley" wrote in message om... "Bryce" wrote in message ... You need to type less and do a little bit more research. I've done more than a "little bit" of research and I've been experimenting with actual cameras over the past week. You need to type a little more and make sense. "Mike Henley" wrote in message om... Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor) Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
a "tad" bit maybe?
Is "tad" more than "little"? "Mike Henley" wrote in message om... "Bryce" wrote in message ... You need to type less and do a little bit more research. I've done more than a "little bit" of research and I've been experimenting with actual cameras over the past week. You need to type a little more and make sense. "Mike Henley" wrote in message om... Here's the white balance test of the Canon 20D D-SLR http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp (Ootdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Average, Incandescent: Poor) Here's the white balance test of the budget P&S HP Photosmart R707 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/page6.asp (Outdoors: Excellent, Fluorescent: Excellent, Incandescent: Excellent) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|