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
General Photography
Wedding
Photographing a Party
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: 260839" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>Oh yeah, white balance always has to be given attention later, in any situation. And in such a varied situation, certainly exposure too. Those have such a huge effect, the picture just pops when we get it right. IMO, those people claiming they always get it right in the camera either don't know, or don't care. Or IMO, some are deathly afraid of the thought of computer edit. Sure, we can do that in a studio session, get it right first (at least exposure, but WB is still special), but that's pretty hard out in the real walk-around world. The camera tools are just too crude, and having to decide what it needs before we can even see it doesn't help either. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Flash and bounce are a varied thing too, both WB and exposure. The meter can get exposure ballpark close, but reflective metering simply depends on the scene the camera sees, which varies. The root of the metering system depends on many scenes being about "average", and do in fact meter near a middle tone, but of course, the scene we try is always an exception. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> . I think a very obvious example of that is at <a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/metering.html" target="_blank">How light meters work</a> . Certainly this is something we need to understand. Metered exposure is going to vary with the scene.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So OK, it does take an hour (or two, depending on how efficient) to correct a couple hundred varied pictures (only a few minutes on 200 studio pictures, all the same lighting). 200 pictures in an hour is 18 seconds each, and 18 seconds is a pretty long time, can do a lot when we get going, esp when many cases allow processing many at once. The Raw tools are so good and so easy and so fast, compared to trying to do it individually at the scene. And we have the overwhelming advantage of actually being able to see what they need. Of course, we do need to get exposure a little closer. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p> Sure, we do try to get all of them right first, but we never can. And I will admit Raw being so easy and fast and good has made me a little sloppy, at least it is easier (and better and faster) to defer much of until later at home. Still a good try is a good thing too. There is no point of worrying with WB at the scene (other than I do use a white card frequently, certainly in the studio), but sure, we should try to get exposure pretty close. But a stop or even two of correction is no big deal for Raw.</p><p></p><p>Here is a possible idea for next time, something real easy to do. Put a small white card of palm or wallet size in your shirt pocket. Then imagine this picture is some typical actual indoor bounce scene, a group of people or whatever. This is at ten feet, under a ten foot ceiling.</p><p></p><p>The White card is simply held in outstretched arm. A kludge, it is not in focus (not a concern), and not precisely the same light, and won't work for direct flash, but it is a good valid white. Correcting this one on the near card is 4850K -10. Correcting it on the distant WhiBal card is 5000K -8 (they are always that far apart anyway). Certainly close enough, can't tell any difference between them. Works even better outdoors in daylight. Then correct all of this situation batch the same.</p><p></p><p><img src="http://www.scantips.com/g2/dsf_3995.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>This is TTL BL point&shoot with a D300. I have corrected it + 1/2 EV (in Raw). Spot metering TTL might reduce that a bit.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 260839, member: 12496"] Oh yeah, white balance always has to be given attention later, in any situation. And in such a varied situation, certainly exposure too. Those have such a huge effect, the picture just pops when we get it right. IMO, those people claiming they always get it right in the camera either don't know, or don't care. Or IMO, some are deathly afraid of the thought of computer edit. Sure, we can do that in a studio session, get it right first (at least exposure, but WB is still special), but that's pretty hard out in the real walk-around world. The camera tools are just too crude, and having to decide what it needs before we can even see it doesn't help either. :) Flash and bounce are a varied thing too, both WB and exposure. The meter can get exposure ballpark close, but reflective metering simply depends on the scene the camera sees, which varies. The root of the metering system depends on many scenes being about "average", and do in fact meter near a middle tone, but of course, the scene we try is always an exception. :) . I think a very obvious example of that is at [URL="http://www.scantips.com/lights/metering.html"]How light meters work[/URL] . Certainly this is something we need to understand. Metered exposure is going to vary with the scene. So OK, it does take an hour (or two, depending on how efficient) to correct a couple hundred varied pictures (only a few minutes on 200 studio pictures, all the same lighting). 200 pictures in an hour is 18 seconds each, and 18 seconds is a pretty long time, can do a lot when we get going, esp when many cases allow processing many at once. The Raw tools are so good and so easy and so fast, compared to trying to do it individually at the scene. And we have the overwhelming advantage of actually being able to see what they need. Of course, we do need to get exposure a little closer. :) Sure, we do try to get all of them right first, but we never can. And I will admit Raw being so easy and fast and good has made me a little sloppy, at least it is easier (and better and faster) to defer much of until later at home. Still a good try is a good thing too. There is no point of worrying with WB at the scene (other than I do use a white card frequently, certainly in the studio), but sure, we should try to get exposure pretty close. But a stop or even two of correction is no big deal for Raw. Here is a possible idea for next time, something real easy to do. Put a small white card of palm or wallet size in your shirt pocket. Then imagine this picture is some typical actual indoor bounce scene, a group of people or whatever. This is at ten feet, under a ten foot ceiling. The White card is simply held in outstretched arm. A kludge, it is not in focus (not a concern), and not precisely the same light, and won't work for direct flash, but it is a good valid white. Correcting this one on the near card is 4850K -10. Correcting it on the distant WhiBal card is 5000K -8 (they are always that far apart anyway). Certainly close enough, can't tell any difference between them. Works even better outdoors in daylight. Then correct all of this situation batch the same. [IMG]http://www.scantips.com/g2/dsf_3995.jpg[/IMG] This is TTL BL point&shoot with a D300. I have corrected it + 1/2 EV (in Raw). Spot metering TTL might reduce that a bit. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Photography
Wedding
Photographing a Party
Top
