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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Cameras that try to get white balance right in every situation are actually not desirable. Say your taking a picture of wood furniture of a light color, like the natural wood. White balance could be tricked into thinking it is incandescent light and make the wood look dull grey. Serious photogs will manually set the WB or use Kelvin if the camera supports that. bg Like I said, "serious photogs" can manually set the WB if they wish to, but if a camera is to be set to AUTO WB then it better have a competent AUTO WB (assuming the camera has both AUTO and Manual, which most do), especially when budget priced P&S seems to get it right. I see NO sense at all in the claim that a camera with a poorly performing AUTO white balance is of photographic merit; Auto is one thing, Manual is another. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I ain't no expert on Canon's (my one is a T90 :-) but what I do know is
that as the number of variables increases so does the complexity of using the device - any device whether it be software or hardware. This IMHO seems to be part of the learning curve with any equipment. On mission critical shots and assuming the shoot is in RAW I nam sure that RAW support allows tweaks to AWB and WB settings. If I had a Canon (hint hint) I am sure I could be more specific. Perhaps the consolation is that digital images may be post-processed? Although the point is, I suppose, to use settings to get as close to the finished output you desire as it cuts down on repeat work and post processing My 2c Aerticus |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Auto white balance is inherently subject-dependent; results will be better or worse depending on whether the subject matches the assumptions of the white balance algorithm. Do you balance the picture overall to grey, or just the brightest object on the assumption that it's white? However, this doesn't matter very much. Anyone shooting a 20D in circumstances where white balance is critical should either be shooting in RAW (so WB doesn't matter until conversion time) or do a manual white balance from a white or grey card. The HP camera's auto white balance is more critical because it doesn't *have* RAW output. Dave Hi Dave, Thanks for the reasonable reply. I personally think any situation that includes skintones (usually in artificial lighting) is a critical situation. I have no problem with RAW output for creative control, but I don't think this should be an excuse for poor AUTO or default output performance. As for subjectivity, I totally agree, it becomes entirely subjective, and that's why I think a camera should by default get it as right as possible, otherwise it'd be left up to you to decide what skintone a person has, and this i find totally unacceptable (the other relevant issue is of course color accuracy). It probably doesn't matter for a sunset or a flower shot, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous that I should sit with RAW, sliders, curves, histograms and swatches to decide what skintone an individual had - it shouldn't be up to me, it should be just as it was (color accuracy too is again something I feel should be gotten right by the camera by default). This doesn't mean that you can't do creative control stuff, it just means that you don't have to ALWAYs laboriously do it because what you're getting out by default is incorrect. PS to all: By the way, the "ridiculous Subject line" was an error of cut & paste that I didn't notice. How long was it? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Sabineellen wrote:
snip PS to all: By the way, the "ridiculous Subject line" was an error of cut & paste that I didn't notice. How long was it? This is the subject line of your original post: Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know, there's more to the Canon 20D, but w Some would think that it is _slightly_ excessive ;-) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
This is the subject line of your original post: Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know, there's more to the Canon 20D, but w Some would think that it is _slightly_ excessive ;-) Ha ha ha... yes, it's a little excessive. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Oh.... the T90!
I still have my T70 body from highschool days. The T-90 and T-70 were great cameras. Still are! "Aerticus" wrote in message ... I ain't no expert on Canon's (my one is a T90 :-) but what I do know is that as the number of variables increases so does the complexity of using the device - any device whether it be software or hardware. This IMHO seems to be part of the learning curve with any equipment. On mission critical shots and assuming the shoot is in RAW I nam sure that RAW support allows tweaks to AWB and WB settings. If I had a Canon (hint hint) I am sure I could be more specific. Perhaps the consolation is that digital images may be post-processed? Although the point is, I suppose, to use settings to get as close to the finished output you desire as it cuts down on repeat work and post processing My 2c Aerticus |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Henley wrote:
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. Nonsense. Just how do you think an autosetting works? -- John McWilliams |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Sabineellen wrote:
Like I said, "serious photogs" can manually set the WB if they wish to, but if a camera is to be set to AUTO WB then it better have a competent AUTO WB (assuming the camera has both AUTO and Manual, which most do), especially when budget priced P&S seems to get it right. I see NO sense at all in the claim that a camera with a poorly performing AUTO white balance is of photographic merit; Auto is one thing, Manual is another. Er, "as you said"....Iae, you've already morphed the complaint into that the AWB is "poorly performing", from the review's notice that it was excellent in daylight, but poor under incandescent lighting. Moreover, the presets are tunable. Did you ever consider that in order to get the AWB to be excellent in daylight- the majority of time where it'll be used- there might have been some tradeoffs? Go ahead and not buy one, but to lodge this as a major complaint is churlish. -- John McWilliams |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|