Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="T-Man" data-source="post: 475909" data-attributes="member: 22038">Good question, Felisek. The thing is, WB is much less critical with landscapes than it is with skin tones in portraits, because we're all accustomed to knowing what skin is supposed to look like. The human eye notices skin having the wrong tint more readily than landscape elements, which is much more varied in colors, especially as ambient light color changes with time of day, weather, and season.I use the Expodisk for portraits, indoor lighting, and any situation where I expect the lighting won't change AND I want to neutralize the light temp, not emphasize it. Keep in mind, the goal is to get the WB corrected for the INCIDENT light in the environment, not for a direct, colored light source that you're trying to emphasize in the photo.When you're taking a photo of sunrise/sunset, you're not after color neutrality, you're trying to capture the intense colors. If your in-cam WB of a sunrise/sunset is off a little, it's no big deal because you're trying to obtain YOUR vision of what that sunrise/sunset looked like in post, and so there's no right or wrong interpretation provided you don't get too crazy with the sliders. I'd even argue that you may not WANT "correct" WB. In that situation, either just set to AWB or set your Kelvin to something like 5300 - 5600 or so before shooting, then tweak in post. Portraits are a different story, as nobody wants their likeness shown with green or orange tinted skin, unless you're intentionally doing something crazy for creative reasons.I can see several limitations with the Expodisk. One is obviously if you're taking photos in ever-changing lighting, such as at a concert where you have constantly varying colored lights. The other is when you want to emphasize a dominant color bias in the scene for creative reasons. In those situations, just put the camera in AWB and correct WB the way you want it in post. In many situations, getting CORRECT WB isn't necessarily the goal; it's getting the WB you PREFER the image to have. Again, the big exception is portraits. Skin is supposed to look like skin, and wedding dresses are supposed to be white. The main limitation with the ED I've encountered is when you're shooting in very dim light. Since it further restricts light through the lens, it can sometimes be difficult to get a good reading, even when you open the lens aperture all the way and increase ISO. The camera will tell you whether you got a good reading or not, as the LED control panel will either blink "Good" or "No Good" after you press the shutter button. The main advantage to the Expodisk is with portrait photography and when you want to keep WB CONSISTENT through a series of shots taken in the same incident light temp. Sometimes consistency is as important as being technically "correct." It's not always about being "correct" so much as achieving the look you want. AWB can and will cause variations in the tint of photos in a series depending on shooting angle to the light and the texture and color of surfaces the light is being reflected off of. Setting custom WB with WB cards is less consistent than the Expodisk because you're introducing more variables that influence what the camera "sees" than when using the Expodisk method. The angle you tilt the card slightly changes the tint the camera sees, and the card may not be reflecting the correct light temp representative of the combination of the light sources in the scene.As with everything else, your mileage may vary. I've found the Expodisk to be a very useful tool, and I use it in most situations now. It isn't a cure-all and obviously isn't the best method of setting WB in all situations, but if you shoot in RAW, no big deal; all isn't lost. What it does do is give you a much more consistent, more accurate WB starting point in your RAW files than what AWB provides, and it's much better at getting skin tones right in-camera.</blockquote>

Verification