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="T-Man" data-source="post: 475829" data-attributes="member: 22038"><p>Wayne --</p><p>Have you actually used an Expodisk? Use whatever works best for you, but I'm sorry friend; many of your assumptions are incorrect.</p><p></p><p>To say you can only aim it at one light source is incorrect. You aim it anywhere in the general direction of the environment where you're shooting, and it picks up light from multiple sources/directions, if there are multiple sources of light in the environment (such as inside a church, where you have ambient light through windows combined with fluorescent and incandescent lights). It has pyramid shaped prisms on the surface that picks up light in all directions. It's not like putting a coffee filter over the lens, as the coffee filter is unidirectional. I've used it inside some really weird lighting conditions like restaurants with multicolored lights, and I promise you, it's way more accurate than AWB. And yes, I'm being generous when I say it takes 10 seconds because when I'm planning to take photos, I already have it out. I wear it around my neck by a lanyard. All I have to do is reach down at my chest and move it over to the front of the lens. You literally just press the WB button, slap the Expodisk on the end of the lens, and press the shutter button. The point is, there is no "fiddling with menus." It really is that simple. But, for argument's sake, let's say it takes 1 minute to do. I still have a better starting point for WB in post when I use it, and it still saves a BUNCH of time, especially when I've taken dozens of photos in the environment. Seldom do I have to do much WB adjustment in post. More often than not, I find that I leave the WB "as shot" when I use this method.</p><p></p><p>My daughter plays the violin, so I've taken photos of her performing inside dimly lit auditoriums with mixed lighting. When I've used AWB, her skin usually has a greenish tint in the RAW images I import into LR from the mixed lighting in the auditorium. Lighting inside many churches have some of the same issues. When I use the Expodisk method, her skin looks natural. Why would I not prefer that as my starting point for editing the image? If I took dozens of photos, how does that not save me post-processing time, when it literally takes seconds to set a custom WB beforehand with the Expodisk? How is that not a good thing?</p><p></p><p>As for the Speedlight example you gave...simple, you just calibrate your custom WB with the Expodisk while taking a sample using the flash. What's the big deal? You're trying to make this more complicated than it is. Even if WB isn't perfect, it's closer to being right than what you get with AWB. The closer your WB is correct right out of camera, the less time you spend adjusting it in post.</p><p></p><p>I have experimented TONS with WB adjustments in LR, both with the WB adjustment eyedropper tool that you use to click on a medium gray color in the image and the temperature and tint sliders. I've used all the presets in the camera. I finally just settled on AWB and left it there and relied exclusively on adjusting WB in post...until recently. I'm telling you that after I started using the Expodisk, I spend way less time monkeying with WB in post, because it's either correct as-is or closer to being correct to my eyes than what AWB gave me. Yes, with RAW, of course you can alter WB any way you wish in post non-destructively, but I get a higher % of photos with WB that looks more natural as imported when I use custom WB calibrated by the Expodisk. When you import a RAW file into Adobe LR or PS, the software picks up the WB temp from the embedded JPEG within the RAW and you see whatever your WB starting point was in-camera as your starting point for processing the image. If you use that WB starting point and make no further adjustments, then export the image out of LR/PS, the resulting TIFF or JPEG file you exported retains that WB tint. Again, Mr. Maynard demonstrated AWB vs. the WB presets vs. gray card vs. the Expodisk and SHOWED all of us in attendance the difference right out of camera, while photographing a model using broad, short, clamshell, and butterfly lighting setups, right there, right in front of us. I promise you, it works better than your AWB setting in-camera. When someone is obviously more skilled than me and has the portfolio and the notoriety to prove it, I try to listen to what they say. In this case, he didn't just say it, he proved it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="T-Man, post: 475829, member: 22038"] Wayne -- Have you actually used an Expodisk? Use whatever works best for you, but I'm sorry friend; many of your assumptions are incorrect. To say you can only aim it at one light source is incorrect. You aim it anywhere in the general direction of the environment where you're shooting, and it picks up light from multiple sources/directions, if there are multiple sources of light in the environment (such as inside a church, where you have ambient light through windows combined with fluorescent and incandescent lights). It has pyramid shaped prisms on the surface that picks up light in all directions. It's not like putting a coffee filter over the lens, as the coffee filter is unidirectional. I've used it inside some really weird lighting conditions like restaurants with multicolored lights, and I promise you, it's way more accurate than AWB. And yes, I'm being generous when I say it takes 10 seconds because when I'm planning to take photos, I already have it out. I wear it around my neck by a lanyard. All I have to do is reach down at my chest and move it over to the front of the lens. You literally just press the WB button, slap the Expodisk on the end of the lens, and press the shutter button. The point is, there is no "fiddling with menus." It really is that simple. But, for argument's sake, let's say it takes 1 minute to do. I still have a better starting point for WB in post when I use it, and it still saves a BUNCH of time, especially when I've taken dozens of photos in the environment. Seldom do I have to do much WB adjustment in post. More often than not, I find that I leave the WB "as shot" when I use this method. My daughter plays the violin, so I've taken photos of her performing inside dimly lit auditoriums with mixed lighting. When I've used AWB, her skin usually has a greenish tint in the RAW images I import into LR from the mixed lighting in the auditorium. Lighting inside many churches have some of the same issues. When I use the Expodisk method, her skin looks natural. Why would I not prefer that as my starting point for editing the image? If I took dozens of photos, how does that not save me post-processing time, when it literally takes seconds to set a custom WB beforehand with the Expodisk? How is that not a good thing? As for the Speedlight example you gave...simple, you just calibrate your custom WB with the Expodisk while taking a sample using the flash. What's the big deal? You're trying to make this more complicated than it is. Even if WB isn't perfect, it's closer to being right than what you get with AWB. The closer your WB is correct right out of camera, the less time you spend adjusting it in post. I have experimented TONS with WB adjustments in LR, both with the WB adjustment eyedropper tool that you use to click on a medium gray color in the image and the temperature and tint sliders. I've used all the presets in the camera. I finally just settled on AWB and left it there and relied exclusively on adjusting WB in post...until recently. I'm telling you that after I started using the Expodisk, I spend way less time monkeying with WB in post, because it's either correct as-is or closer to being correct to my eyes than what AWB gave me. Yes, with RAW, of course you can alter WB any way you wish in post non-destructively, but I get a higher % of photos with WB that looks more natural as imported when I use custom WB calibrated by the Expodisk. When you import a RAW file into Adobe LR or PS, the software picks up the WB temp from the embedded JPEG within the RAW and you see whatever your WB starting point was in-camera as your starting point for processing the image. If you use that WB starting point and make no further adjustments, then export the image out of LR/PS, the resulting TIFF or JPEG file you exported retains that WB tint. Again, Mr. Maynard demonstrated AWB vs. the WB presets vs. gray card vs. the Expodisk and SHOWED all of us in attendance the difference right out of camera, while photographing a model using broad, short, clamshell, and butterfly lighting setups, right there, right in front of us. I promise you, it works better than your AWB setting in-camera. When someone is obviously more skilled than me and has the portfolio and the notoriety to prove it, I try to listen to what they say. In this case, he didn't just say it, he proved it. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
do you use a white balance?
Top
