----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Quack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: Re: EOS 10d metering and shutter rants
> > Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:59:09 +0900 > > From: Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Re: EOS 10d metering and shutter rants > > > > Michael Quack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to: > > > > > >>>It might be interesting to see if the camera meter > >>>reading in Manual mode using eval metering varies > >>>much in this type of scene, > >> > >>It will just like before. Evaluative is the most > >>silly thing to use (besides AWB), because you can't > >>predict what the camera is going to fuck up next. > > > > I thought you really had something to say until > > you said this. Why would I care about white balance > > when I always shoot RAW? > > Hm, you seem to have too much time on your hands. > > Last weekend I shot a fashion show. Last seasons > shooting: http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/2.htm > White background, clothes in different colors. > AWB would have given me a different color all the > time. Yes, I could have corrected this on every > single shot. But why waste my precious time? > > The night after the shot I extracted the embedded > Jpegs from the RAW files - no correction necessary, > all on the spot. Thoses extracts were used for a > preliminary lookbook, the most important thing in > ordering during a fashion trade fair. > > Printed on a Minolta QMS 2350 laser printer and > delivered to the showroom at 8 in the morning. > Converting from RAW would have cost too much time. > Lookbooks are done in batch action after pre-defined > actions, I just click run and go to sleep while you are > fumbling with the color. The full RAW files are > afterwards used in offset printing for a "real" > printed version distributed to fashion editors and > big buyers. > > Much as I use (M)aster mode to get the exposure > right all the time, I use custom WB to get the > color right all the time. > > Look at this to see how badly off AWB can be (and > often is): http://www.photoquack.de/temp/wb.jpg > > Now you might not experience colors that dramatically > off. But they will be off, some more, some less. > You can either decide to correct them (but then, > off what reference?), or leave them as is. > > Sometimes you might not even notice there is a > problem because you are not trained enough to > recognize the color problem or your system is > simply not capable of displaying the color in a > way that allows proper judgement. > > Others might well notice, then. Some of those > "others" might be prospective clients, judging > your work against another photographer who > knows what he is doing. The differences might > not be striking and jump at you, but they are > there. > > > Thanks for the comments, condescending though they were. > > I pointed out things you should invest some > learning time in. I didn't judge you for that, > at some point I started from scratch as well. > > But I do judge people for calling serious > advice condescending. > > On the other hand I like the existence of > competitors who don't master color management > or their camera. They make me look better in > comparison. And yes, this *is* condescending. > > -- > Michael Quack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Michael, You're catwalk shots seem to be under lighting of constant temperature and intensity, so CWB and Manual exposure are the best method. Would you choose the same route under changing light? Incidentally, I prefer the AWB portrait to the CWB. It may not be correct, but I don't give a *$!% (Quackism?). Regards, CraigZ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
