Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
do you use a white balance?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 475799" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>Yes, Adobe does something there, but is it right? I'm thinking you may not have experimented much with this? Have you tried correcting it after that As Shot try?</p><p></p><p>Yes, Adobe raw does try WB in their As Shot WB choice, but color temperature is not in the Exif. Nikon puts a RGB multiplier in the Exif, but it does not come out real close in Adobe. It is ballpark, enough that non-critical users may not know or care, but it can always be done better. I rule out As Shot 100%. It's not Adobe's fault, it's a difficult problem, and Nikon raw software possibly might actually know how to do better, I don't know, but of course, the really big deal is that matching the standard camera WB choices couldn't be right even if it did know.</p><p></p><p>All lighting varies, esp including flash pictures vary with flash power level and flash unit (which makes WB correction be critical), so this is only one example, mileage surely varies, but I'm looking at one right now. Two SB-800 (with new flash tubes) in white umbrellas with D800 Commander.</p><p></p><p>Try setting Flash WB in the camera, and shoot Raw with flash, and then the Adobe As Shot choice might say 5500K Tint -12. In my example, kinda of thin bluish color, thin color, not pleasing color.</p><p>Use a different flash, and get a rather different result (but it can all be corrected).</p><p></p><p>Select Adobe Flash WB, and it changes to 5500K Tint 0, and looks slightly better. This Abobe Flash WB is like the camera Flash WB, just a constant number, wishful hoping without actually being related to the actual flash color. </p><p></p><p>Select Auto WB in Adobe, and 5900K +5 Tint, and looks better yet (which is frankly surprising, but maybe Auto wins one now and then.)</p><p></p><p>Click on a white card in the test picture, and 6200K +10 Tint, and best yet, very natural color. I also select Neutral color in Adobe for this, it does portraits best. Because the ladies don't like the strange hair colors in either Adobe Standard or Camera Standard. They really know hair color, and see things that I never notice. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>The numbers don't matter, the lighting is always what it is, the numbers just show the change. But a pleasing natural result is pretty important. The images seem to really snap in and come to life when we get it right.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I suspect it takes more than 10 seconds just to fiddle with getting the diffuser on the lens. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> And off again, and stored away, etc. But you can only aim it at one light source. And it's not actually about the subjects location. So sorry, I'm not convinced.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No disrespect meant for David, I know nothing about him other than that he sells a DVD. But I am not a believer, and I already have a solution that works well. The diffuser seems an indirect method, where a known white card that is actually in the light with the subject is a very direct method. If using the camera custom method, I would trust it aimed at a white card actually at the subject more than the plastic diffuser aimed at one light. But even then, I still have to get it into Adobe, a big step making the card in the test picture be much easier and more correct, to simply do it in raw later.</p><p></p><p>Just one opinion, everyone has their notions. We gotta do what we believe is best. The most important thing is to do something.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 475799, member: 12496"] Yes, Adobe does something there, but is it right? I'm thinking you may not have experimented much with this? Have you tried correcting it after that As Shot try? Yes, Adobe raw does try WB in their As Shot WB choice, but color temperature is not in the Exif. Nikon puts a RGB multiplier in the Exif, but it does not come out real close in Adobe. It is ballpark, enough that non-critical users may not know or care, but it can always be done better. I rule out As Shot 100%. It's not Adobe's fault, it's a difficult problem, and Nikon raw software possibly might actually know how to do better, I don't know, but of course, the really big deal is that matching the standard camera WB choices couldn't be right even if it did know. All lighting varies, esp including flash pictures vary with flash power level and flash unit (which makes WB correction be critical), so this is only one example, mileage surely varies, but I'm looking at one right now. Two SB-800 (with new flash tubes) in white umbrellas with D800 Commander. Try setting Flash WB in the camera, and shoot Raw with flash, and then the Adobe As Shot choice might say 5500K Tint -12. In my example, kinda of thin bluish color, thin color, not pleasing color. Use a different flash, and get a rather different result (but it can all be corrected). Select Adobe Flash WB, and it changes to 5500K Tint 0, and looks slightly better. This Abobe Flash WB is like the camera Flash WB, just a constant number, wishful hoping without actually being related to the actual flash color. Select Auto WB in Adobe, and 5900K +5 Tint, and looks better yet (which is frankly surprising, but maybe Auto wins one now and then.) Click on a white card in the test picture, and 6200K +10 Tint, and best yet, very natural color. I also select Neutral color in Adobe for this, it does portraits best. Because the ladies don't like the strange hair colors in either Adobe Standard or Camera Standard. They really know hair color, and see things that I never notice. :) The numbers don't matter, the lighting is always what it is, the numbers just show the change. But a pleasing natural result is pretty important. The images seem to really snap in and come to life when we get it right. I suspect it takes more than 10 seconds just to fiddle with getting the diffuser on the lens. :) And off again, and stored away, etc. But you can only aim it at one light source. And it's not actually about the subjects location. So sorry, I'm not convinced. No disrespect meant for David, I know nothing about him other than that he sells a DVD. But I am not a believer, and I already have a solution that works well. The diffuser seems an indirect method, where a known white card that is actually in the light with the subject is a very direct method. If using the camera custom method, I would trust it aimed at a white card actually at the subject more than the plastic diffuser aimed at one light. But even then, I still have to get it into Adobe, a big step making the card in the test picture be much easier and more correct, to simply do it in raw later. Just one opinion, everyone has their notions. We gotta do what we believe is best. The most important thing is to do something. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
do you use a white balance?
Top
