Oh, I see where you’re coming from. In the context of the lack of downsides to setting WB in post, what’s important is that the raw data in the file the camera writes is not affected by the WB setting in the camera.
May 18, 2023
439
-
-
no they do it because NO ips monitor can maintain an accurate calibration over time. at $4000 for a monitor you would think they could but they cant same as cheap monitors.
-
That's just plain dumb :-D because are you not aware that all monitors will go out of calibration to some extent over time? lolol:-D.
For people who know what they are doing it is not very time consuming to calibrate and profile a monitor.
Currently you don't even profile your monitor and calibrate it by only your eyes.
All this explains why you see yellow casts that are not real.
You still haven't posted the histogram you foolishly claimed shows a yellow cast in the edited dog image I posted :-D
-
If the monitor calibrates itself every night, you don't have to worry about drift. If you don't have a monitor that does that, and you calibrate it once a week or so, you don't have to worry about drift.
-
I don't think there was ever a portrait where a warming light modifier was not used to supply some contrast to my subjects face.
I also use custom WB targets picked because they offer a WB that gives a nice warming natural glow.
Much of the time for me at least, I try and mimic light and WB that gives a natural and pleasing look, There is a few times that accurate color and WB is my goal but this never really creates a pleasing image.
One time I was called to do some work where the main subject the product had be accurate for display purposes, while having people around the subject.The final image really needed 2 processing, one for the accuracy of the product colors and the second for the people to create a pleasing image.
-
One of the bigger problems for me with calibration is the length of time the monitor is on, once the it has been on and warmed up I really don't have much of a problem and a week without calibration is not a problem
-
And the issue that most people ignore is keeping the viewing conditions constant.
-
same, its a nightmare shooting 7 lights with various diffuses, coloured costumes. ambient outdoor light . led ambient studio ceiling lights, transparency film gobos i make and project through 40 y/old 35mm slr cameras. 🤔 you know the best calibration/ wb tool ever invented ? the latest 2023 ACR subject masking tool 😄😆
-
exactly . i will give it away (the other member was getting frustrated finding info) the best site to find this information is www.eizo.com/products/coloredge/cg2420/
if i could afford one i would buy one but i cant 😌
great read and they dont hide what they do to over come the problem of calibration. -
What would you say is the best WB.
A lot of time people that have problems with the colors they produce have very little to do with WB
-
Oh, you mean "raw data as provided by the camera", no?
That's what I get for jumping into such a morass of discourse..
-
Not sure of that is always true but it seems the safe way to bet.
So....on topic...I was on DPR the other day and a guy said that he will not be buying the Z8 because it does not have a raw histogram. Is that where we are today? It almost seems like they just made their best camera ever for most and people turn their nose up at it for this? It's like people haven't been getting proper exposures for the last 20 years.
-
"Proper exposure" refers to the exposure that makes a capture look "normal" in "normal viewing conditions", with default conversion. The reason people want raw histograms is because proper exposure isn't necessarily the best compromise between exposure and clipping, and a raw histogram could reduce the guessing as to how to get the most exposure without losing highlight detail.
Proper is not the same as "best". Some folks at some times aim for "better than proper" exposure.
-
Really? Because no Nikon, Sony or Canon has raw histogram.
-
Same reason I'm not buying Hubble.
-
I think 'proper exposure' is the result of jargon panic. People like to use jargon for various reasons, but if they get the usage wrong it makes them look that bit less expert. In the days of film, 'correct exposure' had quite a closely defined meaning dating from Hurter and Driffield, who coined the term originally and whose work included marked-up HD diagrams showing exactly what they meant by 'correct exposure' (which was essentially, keeping the range of exposures so far as was possible on the most linear part of the negative's characteristic). Most people nowadays know nothing of that usage, but still like to use the term - however they get picked up on what they mean by it - so they'll fudge a bit by saying 'proper exposure'.
-
Yeah, I think he is just waiting until someone offers it. His prerogative I guess but it seems pretty nitpicky.
-
Elsewhere, I coined an acronym "SPV" (Standard Photographic Vague) to indicate such or similar talk.
Aah ... Hurter and Driffield ...
