Olaf Greve wrote:
>Hi Philippe,
>
>
>
>>Sounds like JPEG to me, do you also shoot RAW?
>>
>>
>
>Nope, I shoot in (the) high(est?) quality JPEG, never RAW.
>
>
Hence the trouble ...
Quality refers most certainly to pixel count, not WB for all I know, why
should it? I haven't checked though.
If you really don't want RAW, do as suggested in C.H. Ling's post then -
I guess it will be safer.
>
>
>>If so, this is kind of non-issue - get the WB dropper (in PS or LR)
>>where you think the white should be, that's it.
>>
>>
>
>Ehmmm, I don't think I get it... With 'PS' I guess you mean PhotoShop?
>
>
Yes, even PSElements 2 had it.
>If so, wouldn't that just give me an indication of the WB mismatch in
>that particular picture, or will it give me information that can be used
>to make global adjustments in the camera in order to compensate for the
>mismatch?
>
>
No , I don't think so - anyway each particular photo requires different
settings, except if you keep shooting the very same photo in the same
lighting conditions, which I doubt.
>What I'm trying to prevent, is to have to do this as post-processing
>step for each picture,
>
Software such as LR does that in batch - I don't know for sure about
CS3/4, they most likely do too.
> and instead try to figure out a global camera
>setting that alleviates these issues as much as possible...
>
>
>
Won't work IMHO when you have mixed sources of lighting - flash
intensity may vary, colour temp of natural light also does, the colours
of the objects too.
Instant WB setting, would work for a basket ball game, then you'd have
to adjust again when you shoot in a swimming pool, etc. (cf. supra).
Keep us informed.
Phx
>Cheers,
>Olafo
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|