On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This can be confusing. There are two possible Auto WBs, the one in the
> camera and the one in ACR. Go into PS, and you
> have yet another.
>
> > If you're still taking
> > in the raw file which is now *marked* as Auto WB instead of *converted*
> > then neither camera's conversion firmware has entered the picture yet.
> > ACR picks up a raw file, sees Auto WB and provides its own
> > interpretation of what that means.
>
> Perhaps true enough. I'm not sure what that may mean, though, I haven't
> used Auto WB in a camera in years. If they have
> measured the camera, they could know the target WB setting the camera
> shoots for in its AWB, pass the data through
> without adjustment and show the target values in As Shot.
>
> > Since the results are very similar either the raw data from both sensors
> must be very similar or else ACR discovers them to be similar after first
> passing each one's data through the custom profiles by body type.
>
> Here, I think the above confusion may have got to you. Joel says:
>
> On 4/11/2013 1:14 PM, DZDub wrote:
> > ... As far as the tones go, I am going to experiment with allowing ACR
> to auto
> > adjust WB.
>
> On 4/12/2013 5:09 AM, DZDub wrote:
> > .... Not a lot to choose from between them, and I
> > think that would have to be expected because I let Photoshop override the
> > camera's WB.
>
> He has not used the camera Auto WB, but ACR's (assuming the PS ref should
> read ACR). As he points out, the only visible
> difference then is a subtle contrast difference.
>
> I'm not sure I see the point of the second comparison. If the E-400 is
> bought for a different take on color from the
> Kodak sensor, why correct both to be essentially identical in color?
First, thanks, Moose, for bringing this all back to the forefront of
recall. I appreciate the effort and the information. Thanks also Chuck,
who knew he knew.
Yes, there really is no point, in retrospect, of using ACR auto WB to bring
both cameras to near identical results, but I'm glad I did, sort of to
leave no stone unturned. Sometimes it is good to confirm hypotheses just
to make sure you understand that what you think you can expect is what will
actually happen. I'm also glad to have done it just to pick up on the
slight difference in contrast.
I've learned a few other stray bits of information along the way too.
Viewer 2 no longer has any advantages toover ACR as a raw converter that I
can see, at least in the images I looked at. This shooting gave me a
chance also to test out my CF and regular Bogen tripod. If I shoot the
50-200 without anti-shock it is OK until I use the DZ 1.4x TC. The shutter
causes a little bounce with the CF tripod using this combination, even with
the center tube as low as possible. The Bogen is a little better. I think
this explains why I have never found the TC to be as good as its
reputation. I need to apply more care.
I can get an "as shot" result with the E-410 that approaches the result of
the E-400 by altering the Auto WB setting +3 Red and -1 Green. Then I have
to change the "as shot" temperature -500 or so cooler in ACR. Crazy weird!
However, I usually check "as shot", "auto", and "daylight" (or any of the
other WB presets in ACR as the conditions might suggest) to get the result
I like best. I think this is why I have been satisfied with the E-410 to
this point in time. I really had no independent reference points until I
got the E-400. But I suspect I will just use each body independently
hereafter and deal with each capture on its own terms.
Thanks again, gents.
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|