Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="T-Man" data-source="post: 476065" data-attributes="member: 22038">I find your continual use of that phrase and similar phrases peppered through your posts to be condescending and annoying. You don't know what I am and am not "aware of" or have or "have not considered." It's not just an opaque piece of plastic you put over the end of the lens, it is in fact a spectrometer-calibrated gage, and a calibration card is included detailing the actual transmission % and color space values measured on the actual ED you bought, hardly equivalent to a Pringles lid or coffee filter. Not only have I now tested it vs. other methods extensively, but I watched a highly respected professional photographer demonstrate all the WB setting methods back to back, using the same subject in the same lighting, and he proved TO ME without a shadow of doubt that -- at least in that conference room -- the Expodisk produced a more natural looking WB result. There wasn't a soul in the room that disagreed with that conclusion after comparing the images on his monitor, right in front of their noses. They were RAW files, not JPEGs.Since then, I've proven to MY satisfaction that it works very well FOR ME. So, no matter how many times you endeavor to "instruct" me with lengthy, tortured technical treatises on the pitfalls of "Adobe as-shot issue(s)" reiterate how "WB is not in RAW files," regale me with scenarios I "obviously" haven't considered, and introduce strawman arguments and non-sequiturs I never addressed, we unavoidably arrive back at the basic premise that you haven't actually tried that which you criticize. No matter how many different ways you lecture me on how my eyes cannot possibly be seeing that which they very clearly see, the simple fact remains that when I import a RAW file into Lightroom, an "as shot" WB temp and tint -- that's directly the result of settings I made to WB in-camera, whether right, wrong or indifferent -- appears before my eyes...ostensibly through magic, since "of course," no WB information could possibly migrate over from my camera into LR via any component of a RAW file. The "point of doing it wrong" is that my "as shot" WB is more consistent and more consistently to my liking when I calibrate WB with the Expodisk vs. using other methods. Whether that occurs because the EMBEDDED JPEG WITHIN EVERY RAW FILE does, in fact, communicate in-camera WB to Adobe's software, or because there are little fairies inside every Expodisk that sprinkle magic dust into the light entering my camera, I don't give a damn. Perhaps I'm just delusional and the power of suggestion has skewed my chromatic perception. If so, again, I don't give a damn; ignorance is bliss. The thing works FOR ME. I explained very clearly that it isn't a panacea for all situations. I explained very clearly where and how I use it and where and how I've found it to be a very useful tool. If you doubt its usefulness, that's perfectly o.k., but I don't get your need to continually "tell" me stuff that's contrary to my FIRSTHAND experience from actually using the product.Nice touch adding the "remove and reinstall the lens hood" part in your attempt to make the process seem so incredibly daunting and inconvenient, when in fact I seldom ever use a lens hood, especially in situations where I would typically use the Expodisk -- indoors and portraits. If I habitually used a lens hood, I would get the larger 82mm version rather than the 77mm version and just hold it in front of the lens objective, which is perfectly viable. I've already said repeatedly that the entire angst-inducing "process" takes me a whole 10 seconds...if I'm lollygagging. I know this firsthand, because unlike you, I'm not guessing.If you don't believe me, fine. I highly recommend you not buy one, as you have your mind made up. It must be nice to know everything even without actually trying it. One day, I hope to get there.</blockquote>

Verification