That's OK if you like post processing. If you were shooting 500 images, it
wouldn't be much fun to color correct a large percentage of those images
because you didn't set the white balance right.
There's definitely an artform to setting the WB. I've noticed that quite a few
threads on the ExpoDisc http://www.expodisc.com/ lately on dpreview. This
device, which fits over the lens, supposedly integrates all the light sources
in a room to set the WB correctly.
The E-1 also has quite a sophisticated WB routine. It's white balance sensor
is on the front/top of the camera, where it can "see" the majority of the light
sources. You can also point the camera at a white or neutral target, hit the
"Auto WB" button.
I did a quick test of how well the E-1's sytem works. Look on this page.
http://skipwilliams.smugmug.com/gallery/83391. The images are resized jpg's to
1000 pixels wide, no post processing.
Photo 1: Straight scene, with my desk light pointed down at my laptop, not
falling on the camera's WB sensor. VERY YELLLOW
Photo 2: Same as Photo 1, but I tilted the desk lamp to have it's light
(threaded socket florescent) fall on the E-1's white balance sensor. LESS
YELLOW, BUT NOT WHITE.
Photo 3: Pointed the camera at the card lying on the keyboard and hit the
custom WB button, then took the picture. MUCH BETTER.
In the end, it's better to meter (both color temperature and exposure) the
light falling on the subject. That's why they made color temp meters. Getting
it right is a PITA.
Skip
>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Woe is Me - and Why Go Digital?
> From: "jamesfc@xxxxxxx" <jamesfc@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:44:54 -0500
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>I would like additional input, but here's my take on digital White-balance:
>
>If you shoot RAW, you don't really have to worry too much about WB. Since
>Photoshop CS now reads and converts RAW images from most of the major
>manufacturers, you can perform white balance back in the comfort of your
>home, if you don't mind spending the time doing it. The camera apparently
>processes the RAW image after the fact anyway if it is going to save it as
>a TIFF or JPG, so even though the RAW image is larger than JPG, by saving
>in the RAW format you have more control over it.
>
>I basically set mine to auto WB and worry about it later. I like this
>because it gives me the final control over the color balance of the image
>without compromising the quality of the image.
>
>In studio work, I'll set the white balance with a white card, but many
>times I'll still do minor adjusting of the RAW file in the Photoshop RAW
>image reader.
>
>Jim Caldwell
>
>Original Message:
>-----------------
>From: AG Schnozz agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx
>Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 08:25:11 -0800 (PST)
>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [OM] Re: Woe is Me - and Why Go Digital?
>
>
>I'm combining a couple of threads here.
>
>
>5. Setting White-Balance is an artform.
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
>List Problem"
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|