And, not to sound like a broken record, but I've found *custom* WB to
be the best and I do that whenever time allows. I still prefer to
'get it right in the camera' rather than burn up a bunch of time
'fixing it later in Photoshop'. IMO, of course.
Out of curiosity, when you look at the cubes on screen, what are the
RGB values for them?
my two lux worth/ScottGee1
On 10/14/05, NSURIT@xxxxxxx <NSURIT@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> RTFM. Give me a break! I've been using my e-1 for a little over a year and
> a half now and have been having an absolute blast with it. Some wonderful
> images have been created and it is now my camera of choice, although I still
> burn a fair amount of film. I'm currently taking a continuing education
> class
> at Rice University on lighting. The instructor, who some out there in
> Zuikoland may have run into in Colorado, California or perhaps New York, is a
> fellow by the name of Don Eddy. In addition to having a strong education in
> photography, Don is also a good photographer. Being 6 or 7 years older than
> me,
> it would probably not surprise many if I told you that Don is basically an
> analog capture kind of guy. He does have a point and shoot digital, scans
> his
> film, uses a computer to process his scans and has a printer from which he
> can
> make huge prints. That being said, he started his education in the 50's
> when many digital photographers had not yet drawn their first breath.
>
> The text we are using is "Photographic Lighting" by Ralph Hattersley which
> is out of print and was first published in 1979. If anyone becomes tempted
> to
> buy it, don't buy the first printing as some of the images are reversed. Most
> of the 20 or so students in his class are using digital for the project we
> are doing. It involves lighting and photographing a white cube and a black
> cube. This is actually a pretty interesting exercise. During our second
> class, which occurred this past Monday, we were using a spot meter to meter
> the
> light on the first cube setup. During this discussion, Don was talking about
> setting your digital camera to the proper white balance for the lighting we
> had rather than using Auto WB. The lighting was predominantly tungsten with a
> bit of florescent. Being an Auto WB kind of guy I figured the meter/camera
> would know and set it at the proper WB. For me it was one of those Thermos
> kind
> of deals. I don't know how it does it, but a Thermos knows to keep the hot
> stuff hot and the cold stuff cold. I figured my e-1 probably had some of
> that Thermos technology built into the WB function.
>
> After setting up the shot, Don, had each of us come shoot it with our
> cameras. I did it using Auto WB . . . and then repeated it having set the
> WB to
> Tungsten. The results were incredible. In this case Auto WB wasn't, IMHO,
> even close. The cube we were photographing was white and the results I got
> with
> the tungsten WB setting was white as opposed to the Auto WB one which more
> yellowish orange.
>
> As I said in the subject line of this message . . .
>
> Now where did I put that manual. For those out there who are only using
> Auto WB, you might do as this old dog did and try a new trick. You may be
> pleased with the results. Bill Barber
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|