| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/11/2007 04:57:51 PM · #1 |
Like everybody else, I've looked for cheap sources of indoor lighting. Also like lots of people, I've tried to use halogen work lamps purchased at Home Depot because they seem really bright for the cost. The quality of the picture, even after white balance correction, has always seemed to lack a bit. I think I've finally realized why. I'm wondering if others would agree or if I'm just off track.
The typical digital sensor uses 1 red sensor, 2 green, and 1 blue to arrive at information with which to record pixels. (I actually don't know if it's one of these units per pixel or not. I seem to think it isn't.) When you use a light source that is shifted way toward the red end of the spectrum you are losing information since the blue pixel may not even register. When the WB is adjusted in RAW, you are basically upping the blue value, but have very little information to start with. Noise is then introduced in the blue channel and the image quality is degraded.
Is this line of reasoning legit?
Message edited by author 2007-09-11 16:58:24.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2007 04:59:20 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm wondering if others would agree or if I'm just off track. |
I agree, they suck. The picture never looks right no matter how I screw around with whitebalance. Best thing to do is get your external flash on a stand and go from there imo.
Message edited by author 2007-09-11 16:59:32. |
|
|
|
09/11/2007 05:12:40 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Best thing to do is get your external flash on a stand and go from there imo. |
I totally agree... and you don't need top of the line flashes either.
I used to think the halogens were a good idea myself, but even with modest flash setups can easily outperform them.
I'm not sure about the logic of your argument, Doc, but it sounds reasonable to me.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2007 05:18:39 PM · #4 |
This post is really a nice piece of bait for  kirbic to come along, find, and then educate us all on.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2007 01:06:18 PM · #5 |
Check out the graphs near the bottom of this page //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature
Seems you are right, or at least on the right track.
Looks like a 5000 degree fluorescent with filters would be better than incandescent. I have a Phillips Natural Sunshine bulb (color temp around 5K, CRI is 92 IIRC) that only need a 1/8 CTM filter to be really close to a flash.
Message edited by author 2007-09-12 13:06:47. |
|
|
|
09/12/2007 01:09:44 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by hankk:
Check out the graphs near the bottom of this page //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature
Seems you are right, or at least on the right track.
Looks like a 5000 degree fluorescent with filters would be better than incandescent. I have a Phillips Natural Sunshine bulb (color temp around 5K, CRI is 92 IIRC) that only need a 1/8 CTM filter to be really close to a flash. |
That's what I use for most of my entries. Two of them.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 09:27:10 AM EDT.
