On 4/12/2014 1:08 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I think white balancing has been greatly oversold... probably by the
> purveyors of WB tools.
:-)
> It's easy to make a pure white balance with digital
Well, easyish. Close is easy. Pure, for example so the catalog shot actually
looks like the subtle pink shirt, is still
not so easy.
> but that doesn't mean we should. Afterall, when we were
> shooting film, we probably shot 99% of our stuff with daylight film.
And I shoot the vast majority of my outdoor shots with Daylight WB. I spend
quite a bit of time in woods, canyons, late
in the day, etc., where the subjects are in shade. Selecting the Shade WB
option, or Cloudy in overcast, in ACR always
looks unnatural to me. But I do fairly often go part way.
> It would be horrid to white balance a sunset or sunrise.
Yup!
> And for the other
> stuff 99% of the 1% was shot with type B film for incandescent and the
> other 0.01% was shot by product advertising shooters who balanced their
> light using 100 different Kodak CC filters. Yuk.
And yet, when shooting in highly mixed light, like my kitchen table or so many
of Paul B's shots, having a real WB
reference can be wonderful for getting a mix that both makes the people look
natural and retains some of 'the way it
actually looked'. Just wildly pushing sliders about is crazy making. (Unless
you are CH, and have a list of RGB values
for various skin tones, etc.)
> Yes, the bride's white dress needs to be white... but not 100% so on the
> beach at sunrise. :-)
And the delicate, white flower needs to be white, but not so much so as to look
wrong on the forest floor.
D'Accord Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|