What white balance method do you use?

In article ,
"Mr. Strat" wrote:

In article , podger
wrote:

Really? I have 4-5 contacts/friends, ranging from Copenhagan to Barcelona
and Thesaloniki. They have all had photo sudios for the best part of 20
years, they shoot wedding shots, shots for tourist offices, newspapres and
occasional exhibitions. They make 100% of their living out of their
photography. None of them have the TIME to fart around with raw.

Then they're not delivering the best quality images to their clients.

That assumes they are incapable of getting the shot in the camera. My
bet is they are. If you get perfect exposures you don't need RAW. I
don't, so I do.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

Mr. Strat wrote:
In article , David J
Taylor
wrote:

Maybe the clients didn't /pay/ for the best quality images, just an
acceptable image at an acceptable price?

That's a pretty crappy way to do business.

With respect, I would have thought that it was the /only/ sensible
way to do business! Otherwise wouldn't we all get our portraits
painted by someone famous?

When I was in business, "good enough" was not in my lexicon.

That would, today, set you aside. Today, you cannot usually afford to
spend more than a certain amount of time on a particular job or project
and, with the Internet and digital photography, people expect results
yesterday! So I suspect that the average punter is looking for something
down to a price level rather than up to a quality level.....

Cheers,
David

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:38:29 GMT, Ray Paseur
wrote:

snip
I don't trust a light meter. I check my picks and check my exposures so I
know what I'm getting.
/snip

Pat: Maybe the group can suggest some solutions that would improve my
workflow in this area; I've never found quite the magic.

I would like to connect my Canon 5D to my Macbook so I can see the image on
the Macbook right after I fire the shutter release. If I could also see
the histograms, that would be great. And even better if I could select
part of the image and see the histograms for the selection.

Does anybody have a successful experience doing this?


That's done with the "Zoombrowser" software that came with my camera,
I assume it came with yours also they're both Canons. I use it
extensively to focus on stars more easily than even the 3 inch screen
provides. Of course the histogram and any light meter I wanted to use
in the dark of night for astreophotgraphy would be pretty much
useless.
Mike in Milton




Thanks, ~Ray

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential
is invisible to the eye"
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

In article , Robert Peirce
wrote:

That assumes they are incapable of getting the shot in the camera. My
bet is they are. If you get perfect exposures you don't need RAW. I
don't, so I do.

I learned long ago that if you got it on the negative, you didn't have
to pay for custom prints. That practice has followed through into
digital days.
But RAW gives you a little extra dynamic range and the ability to make
any corrections much easier than with a JPG.