| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/19/2007 06:40:02 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by Simms:
I trust my AF 100% to hit at least ~95% of all shots. |
Yikes....You have more faith than most!
//www.prophotohome.com/forum/pro-photo-reviews-articles/74359-canon-40d-interactive-review.html?garpg=2#content_start
Here's the summary if you don't want to read the whole article...
AI Servo, Center Point Only Autofocus, 300mm f/2.8, Default Settings
Canon 40D 58% Out of Focus
vs.
Canon 1D MKII 44% Out of Focus
vs.
Canon 1D MKIII 40% Out of Focus
cheers,
bazz. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 06:49:39 AM · #52 |
Cant seem to open that link.. but the summary you have posted is interesting, would like to see full article.. cheers for the heads up (them results are shocking, I never see missed focus like the stats there are saying)
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
//www.prophotohome.com/forum/pro-photo-reviews-articles/74359-canon-40d-interactive-review.html?garpg=2#content_start
Here's the summary if you don't want to read the whole article...
AI Servo, Center Point Only Autofocus, 300mm f/2.8, Default Settings
Canon 40D 58% Out of Focus
vs.
Canon 1D MKII 44% Out of Focus
vs.
Canon 1D MKIII 40% Out of Focus
cheers,
bazz. |
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 07:07:15 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
AE for example is just as accurate as manual exposure, if the operator knows where in the scene to get the exposure reading from. It's as accurate as the built-in light meter. |
In an ideal world thats probably true but unusual lighting conditions like small subjects with strong backlighting are good example of why manufacturers still include exposure compensation dials on camera bodies.
Exposure meters can be fooled and it's only users who can recognise these tricky lighting conditions compensate for them that will get the correct exposure.
AF and AE are no different than AWB in that they're good in some conditions but aren't perfect all the time.
Originally posted by Simms:
Cant seem to open that link.. but the summary you have posted is interesting, would like to see full article.. cheers for the heads up (them results are shocking, I never see missed focus like the stats there are saying)
|
Weird that it won't open.
It's a fairly arduous test focusing on a subject running directly towards the camera. Not what you'd call normal usage and probably arguable on the definition of out-of-focus but it still serves to highlights the shortcomings of even the best AF systems.
Maybe you and others will have more luck with this hyperlink.
bazz. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 07:46:22 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Its no biggy to me to be honest and calling it an "Abomination" is being slightly hysterical. |
lol .. it was meant to provoke a reaction! :-)
I just want people to think about what their doing. And yes, if you're shooting RAW it almost doesn't matter. I still set my WB so that my previews look good, but otherwise, I'll simply adjust in Lightroom. But still... people need to know what AWB is really doing to them.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 08:06:33 AM · #55 |
i can't remember the last time i changed my white balance from the 'flash' setting.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 08:25:48 AM · #56 |
I think the 'best' WB setting has a lot to do with your workflow.
If you shoot RAW and you use a non-proprietary RAW converter then the WB you set in-camera is likely to be changed your converter software. So if you're not happy with the WB that your RAW s/w has chosen, then you're going to have to adjust the WB anyway. In this case it doesn't really make much difference what WB setting you used when you took the shot, as you're going to want to adjust it anyway in post-processing.
I've found that converter software has much less problem decoding the AWB setting than any of the custom WB settings. ('Cloudy' for example looks a bit washed out compared to the JPG preview)
If you shoot JPG, then the WB setting you pick while shooting is much more important as it's harder to adjust any colour problems in post-processing. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 08:53:02 AM · #57 |
It certainly worked, one of the busier threads of the day!
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by Simms:
Its no biggy to me to be honest and calling it an "Abomination" is being slightly hysterical. |
lol .. it was meant to provoke a reaction! :-)
I just want people to think about what their doing. And yes, if you're shooting RAW it almost doesn't matter. I still set my WB so that my previews look good, but otherwise, I'll simply adjust in Lightroom. But still... people need to know what AWB is really doing to them. |
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 08:59:40 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Simms:
It certainly worked, one of the busier threads of the day!
|
Yes ... and one that is at least on the topic of photography (not climate change).
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:00:07 AM · #59 |
since i upgraded from my nikon d50 to the fuji s3pro i rarely shoot raw anymore, because the raw files the fuji produces are around 25mb(!!!) each so it'll take like 5 sec for each file to be written on the card. the d50 was a lot faster with smller raw files so i shot raw most of the time, i usually shot with a fixed wb anyways.
now that i mostly shoot jpg i always have a little white or grey paper with me to set the wb manually before i shoot. that way i get a right wb in...let's say 80% of the cases. i never really cared for the aWB... |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:06:28 AM · #60 |
A flip side to this. Custom white balance used inappropriately is an abomination!!!
I've seen people finding beautiful light, then using custom white balance to totally neutralise it. I've done that myself before I knew any better.
An example of what I mean - I shot this portrait with available light, really early in the morning. The sun was just coming up, the light was really warm. I could have 'fixed' all that with a custom white balance. Then I might as well have gotten up about 3 hours later.
Woode wood
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:17:08 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
A flip side to this. Custom white balance used inappropriately is an abomination!!!
I've seen people finding beautiful light, then using custom white balance to totally neutralise it. I've done that myself before I knew any better.
An example of what I mean - I shot this portrait with available light, really early in the morning. The sun was just coming up, the light was really warm. I could have 'fixed' all that with a custom white balance. Then I might as well have gotten up about 3 hours later.
Woode wood |
Auto WB would probably "fix" it fine too :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:18:36 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Mephisto:
since i upgraded from my nikon d50 to the fuji s3pro i rarely shoot raw anymore, because the raw files the fuji produces are around 25mb(!!!) each so it'll take like 5 sec for each file to be written on the card. |
Sounds like you need high-speed cards with their faster write speed. Have you tried that? This is what they are designed for, anyway...
R.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 10:20:33 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
A flip side to this. Custom white balance used inappropriately is an abomination!!!
I've seen people finding beautiful light, then using custom white balance to totally neutralise it. I've done that myself before I knew any better.
An example of what I mean - I shot this portrait with available light, really early in the morning. The sun was just coming up, the light was really warm. I could have 'fixed' all that with a custom white balance. Then I might as well have gotten up about 3 hours later.
Woode wood |
Excellent point. And a good reason for leaving the camera on the cloudy setting even as the sun is setting. :-)
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 10:53:13 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by Simms:
It certainly worked, one of the busier threads of the day!
|
Yes ... and one that is at least on the topic of photography (not climate change). |
That thread was put on ignore a long time ago, along with the "pick the best photo from the person above you 55" (or whatever number that thread is up to now). :) |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 11:37:20 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by Simms:
To be honest, if I am shooting at a wedding, I havent got time for faffing about with WB and all that nonsense.. I'd much rather sit down in front of LR with a glass of vino worrying about white-balance, than bouncing around in front of a B+G worrying about that (and a hundred other things).. Granted if shooting landscapes you can afford that few extra minutes to sort out WB issues. But most of the time AWB is good for me. |
I have to agree. I've got enough going on to have to deal with WB settings. And, in mixed light settings, it's probably best that I have the ability to make those decisions in post.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:31:11 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
From what I've seen in the RAW converter, when you do that, the temperature is in fact the same.
|
... if the lighting is the same in the first place. |
Actually no. When copying settings from one image to another the actual numbers are copied. |
That's the same as using a fixed white balance setting in the first place. |
If you set it by temperature, but not by name. If you set it by name (in camera) then the temperature value will be different depending on the scene.
I'm done here.
Believe what you want. Process how you want. |
Please let me clarify first that I'm not trying to bait anyone, I'm just trying to understand.
Could someone explain how setting the white balance in reference to colour temperature is different from using one of the (named) presets? I can't see the difference in overall terms, as, to me, they both seem like methods of setting the camera's white balance. If someone could explain it clearly enough for my tiny brain to understand, I'd be very pleased.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:38:24 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
If you set it by temperature, but not by name. If you set it by name (in camera) then the temperature value will be different depending on the scene.
|
I don't quite understand that either. Are you suggesting that 'cloudy' as a kelvin setting, varies based on the scene ? Or that 'tungsten' has a variable value, depending on the light it was shot in ? I haven't experienced it working that way.
What does screw up is things like 'lightroom' that have a 'cloudy' setting that isn't the same as the 'cloudy' value in my camera, for example.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 02:39:29 PM · #68 |
I'm glad to see the thread finally come to it's senses and swing back the other way. No one needs to fear using AWB.
Now what is bad is those that don't use their histogram. For shame.
;D
Mike |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 02:50:15 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
I'm glad to see the thread finally come to it's senses and swing back the other way. No one needs to fear using AWB. |
Wait... I musta missed that part of the thread (other than if you're shooting raw, I mean). I would still contend that AWB should only rarely be used, and then, only under specific circumstances where it makes sense or as a last resort when you don't really have a choice. Otherwise, you just can't predict what you're going to get out of your camera.
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Now what is bad is those that don't use their histogram. For shame. |
Sounds like another good thread. You wanna start this one? :-)
(we gotta do something to keep people from spending ALL of their time arguing about climate change)
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 02:59:51 PM · #70 |
I'm pretty sure none of us are arguing that JPG + AWB is a good idea.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 03:03:45 PM · #71 |
Let's try to explain how this works, OK?
Presumably we all are aware that light meters base their calculated exposure on the assumption that the thing being metered is zone 5, a middle gray. This means if you meter a white wall and use the recommended exposure you get a gray, underexposed wall. And if you meter a black wall and use the recommended exposure, you get a gray, overexposed wall. When your camera is using averaging meter modes that meter the whole scene, it assumes that all the values, if mixed together, would come out to an average gray.
So if you paint a wall half white, half black and frame the image so you see 25% white and 75% black, then using the averaging meter mode you will get an overexposed image. And if you reverse that (75% white and 25% black), you will get an underexposed image.
Now, Auto White Balance works the same way, except with colors. AWB is basically assuming equal amounts of all colors in the image, so it should average out to a neutral balance. If you shoot a scene that is primarily sky, a brilliant blue sky, AWB will try to warm up that sky and it will look greenish in proof. If you shoot a scene that is primarily bright, yellow fall foliage, AWB will bring in too much blue and it will look dull in proof.
In-camera WB settings are, in fact, based on "degrees kelvin" of color temperature. Depending on manufacturer, "daylight" setting will be around 5500 degrees kelvin. "Tungsten" setting will be around 3200 degrees kelvin, the approximate color temperature of fresh, tungsten-filament bulbs (they get warmer as they get older). So with a camera that allows you to set WB in degrees kelvin, there will be no difference between a 3200-degree WB and a tungsten white balance; the "named" settings are just commonly-used WB settings that are preset so you can access them without taking the extra steps to manually dial up the correct setting in degrees kelvin.
Now you've all had the experience, I'm sure, of sitting inside by a window, under room lighting, and looking up and seeing a beautiful, blue-magenta sky at around twilight, right? The room looks "normal" (the in-brain AWB has neutralized the tungsten) and the sky colors are really ricj and striking.
So you go outside to admire the sky, and in a matter of moments the sky seems to "desaturate" and lose its impact; but if you look INTO the house through the window, the interior seems very yellow. That's the brain's AWB resetting to the ambient color temperature of the exterior, which is MUCH cooler then the interior, tungsten lighting.
As photographers, we have to make our decisions as to where we want the balance to be between these extremes. Inside, looking out, tungsten WB is a better choice usually; the visible room is correctly rendered, and the scene through the window is more blue and saturated. Shooting from the outside in, the reverse is true; if we balance for the interior, the outside walls of the house will look unnaturally blue.
Many times, the "correct" WB setting will be between the two extremes. In theory, this is what AWB does for you; it strikes a balance between the two extremes. But AWB can be fooled if it is the subject itself that is anomalously colored, not the light that is falling on the subject. And AWB can give disappointing results when it is the light itself that is colored and that aspect of the light is what you are trying to capture. So, as a rule, if time permits it is better to use a specific WB setting than it is to use AWB, because then you control the rendering of the scene based on your learned response to these variables.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-11-19 15:05:26.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 03:20:09 PM · #72 |
I think some of them are getting way to picky :) Maybe it a point of view of a Canon user, but I personally feel comfortable to use the AWB.
Changing the WB might be useful in some specific situation though... |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 03:22:15 PM · #73 |
Great info Bear! Now, wouldn't it be nice if we could just "compress" this thread down to the important and pertinent info so that others could use it as a resource?
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 03:36:58 PM · #74 |
Here's an example to pick at -- I'm color-blind, so I often miss subtle color casts/shifts, so feel free to point out any oddities. In this more-or-less candid portrait, Isaac was backlit with an overcast sky, wearing a green jacket and orange shirt ... what could/should I do differently?
 |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 03:54:20 PM · #75 |
This has been an interesting thread. Let me first start out by saying that I always change my wb before I start shooting. This is easy because there is a fast way to get to wb on my camera, if it wasn't I probably wouldn't change it often. However, auto white balance isn't an abomination, especially when people are shooting in RAW. Even if I pick a fixed wb it could still be off, so whether it is off a little with the fixed setting, or off a lot with the awb setting, I still have to fix it. Now comes the argument that I might as well have all my shots in the series be the same, well if you have to fine tune one of your pictures and then you apply the settings across to the others, who cares if you picked awb or a fixed setting to begin with? You still have to adjust them all. I personally think people should use a fixed setting, but if you forget and you are shooting in RAW it doesn't matter.
Another topic, going back to those AF stats, yeah, if I used a center only metering for my focus and my subject was never in the center of course I wouldn't focus correctly very often, that is why you can change the metering, most of the time AF is better for me because I don't have perfect vision, even with my glasses, I'd rather trust the camera than my eyesight.
In conclusion, AWB isn't an abomination, but I don't like to use it.
|
|
