On 19 November 2010 02:16, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 18, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Miserere wrote:
>
>> On 18 November 2010 20:56, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Last night I tried a more rigorous test of photographing with and without a
>>> cokin blue filter on my camera. I also tried with and without using custom
>>> white balance in the camera. The following collection are the best few
>>> shots of each of the permutations I tried:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/collections/72157625421911182/
>>>
>>> My gut feeling is that the biggest difference is due to using in camera
>>> white balance. That it allows me to shoot with the colors more balanced
>>> without blowing out the red channel. I'm not sure how this works unless it
>>> tweaks the gain that goes into the raw file. Shooting with a blue filter,
>>> allowed me to set the custom white balance when I otherwise couldn't. It
>>> also meant using much slower shutter speeds, so there's a tradeoff there.
>>>
>>> However the final product is a result of skill level throughout the whole
>>> process, and my lightroom skills are fairly rudimentary, a more accurate
>>> test would be to have someone that knows post processing clean up the
>>> files. A more practical (except for the cost) solution would probably be
>>> to get a K-5 with its greater dynamic range, which would allow a lot more
>>> room for color correction without blowing out highlights.
>>
>> OK Larry, I took a look, but they all look pretty good at those sizes.
>> What's your take on the experiment?
>
> I recognize that this is a somewhat unusual situation (though I run into
> similar lighting at Don Quixote's in Felton), and until/unless I'm getting
> paid to photograph in this lighting, it's only worth so much of my time and
> effort to polish all of the details. That being said, I think that there are
> indeed things I can learn from it that I'll be able to generalize to other
> lighting situations.
>
> 1) I wish that I knew exactly what changing the white balance did to the
> hardware and the raw file. I hate that Pentax (and I assume all other
> manufacturers) figure that people are too stupid to understand and just say
> what effect the controls are supposed to have, rather than telling us what
> they actually do. Digital cameras are made for people who want their hands
> held, not for people that like to get their hands dirty.
>
> 2) To really understand the results, I'd need to go beyond pixel peeping into
> raw data peeping and see what happens with the raw data. If you look at the
> exif info, there's a couple of stops difference in exposure between
> unfiltered and filtered. I don't remember what the difference is between
> unfiltered corrected WB and unfiltered tungsten WB. However, if shutter
> speed is critical, then I'd say expose for the brightest channel, and take
> your lumps in the other channels. If there's lots and lots of light, then my
> gut feeling is that the filters will help.
>
> 3) I'm really looking forward to getting a K-5, which seems to have good
> enough performance in every category, that I'll be happy with it for several
> years. I'll plan on having it long enough to make it worth while *really*
> learning how to suck every drop of performance out of it. I absolutely love
> my K-x, and it'll do almost everything I need, but with the dumbed down
> controls, it's not a camera that disappears, like the K20 does when I'm using
> it within its performance envelope.
>
>
>>
>> Is that lady as intense as she seems in the photos?
>
> Only on stage. Sitting around a table having a drink, she's about as mellow
> as they come, but she does seem to come alive on stage. Her name is Aeriol
> Ascher, if you google her you'll mostly find links to her Reiki massage
> business. I also find her extremely photogenic. A lot of singers just look
> like they're making silly faces when you photograph them, Aeriol looks like
> she is creating music and energy out of thin air.
Larry,
I've known a few singers who were like that, meek and quiet off stage,
loud and brave on stage. I'm sure there's a social or behavioural
sciences PhD thesis in there somewhere.
Filtering will increase exposure times, but if the light is bright
enough and your camera is good enough at higher ISO, then filtering
might make sense. I've shot some shows that only had red light; as I
was going for B&W, it wasn't too big of a deal, although it hurt to
know that thanks to Mr Bayer I was throwing away about %75 of my
photons. Metering was trial and error and keeping foreheads from
blowing out (not literally, I mean overexposure) was tough. When I've
had mixed light I haven't tried filters because with the K10D's max
ISO of 1600 I was already struggling with shutter speed. I'll probably
try filters once (if) I get a K-5.
You mentioned something about RAW histograms in your first post (or
maybe it was a different post). As far as I know, if you want RAW
histograms you need to buy a Leica M9 (and maybe an M8(.2)), which
gives you JPEG or RAW histograms depending on what file type you're
shooting. Makes sense to me! The closest you can get on your Pentax is
to set your picture settings all the way to the left. Your camera
previews will now look dull, but the histogram should be as close to
RAW as you can get.
—M.
\/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com
http://EnticingTheLight.com
A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
