Overgaard Posted October 11, 2009 Share #21 Posted October 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thorsten - many thanks for helpful comments - appreciated. I'm not trying to set up an on-line tutorial here () but a couple of questions when you say WhiBal card are you refering to the larger G6 reference card (Digital Photography - RawWorkflow.com - WhiBal Certified Gray Card for White Balance) or the smaller pocket one - which is what I currently use... Is your techique to take a shot of the card in each new location / light zone you walk into (setting it so it catches relevant illumination) and then to AWB during the shoot, adjusting RAWs as required in post using this shot as a reference? I've worked this way when I've had time - and I agree it's good (and IMHO more effective than trying to set a manual WB in camera - there seems no point in doing this unless your shooting JPEG...) I have both the credit-card sized "keychain/pocket" one and he larger one (when I have space for it in a pocket or bag). I've come to prefer this "standardized grey" as the paper, white walls, white curtains, etc. all had different shades or colors of white. I set the camera to Manual WB and then shoot the card where it fills most of the image (so I don't look through the viewfinder but place he card in an angle in front of the lens). Exposure has to be Auto or at least the correct one for WB Manual reading to work out. The neat thing is that I then also have a picture of it for later reference, and the camera will tell if the WB was set or not as it previews that photo. I firmly believe in "getting it right in camera" so the adjustments are minor. You can tweak anything in the computer, but the farther you depart from the starting point, the more you rely on computer algorithms to figure out how it really looked - au natural (and there's where my confidence is not as complete). I've seen the hue chars and all they make up at Adobe and I'm very impressed that they can spend all day with this - and I've noticed they're getting better and better at it. But nothing beats the right exposure, right color temperature and right light. That doesn't mean you can't be in doubt if it was the right one, so when I for example do 50 portraits in the same light, I have someone sit with the card in the beginning as reference. Just to make sure. Where it gets real tricky is those locations where there's no reference color at all in the frame (like a yellow curtain as background in halogen light with a sunburned lady i blue dress - and not a single white, black or grey spot in the picture). Then you find out what a bad habit it is correcting color temperature in Lightroom instead of on location Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 11, 2009 Posted October 11, 2009 Hi Overgaard, Take a look here M9 - learning some lessons. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Overgaard Posted October 11, 2009 Share #22 Posted October 11, 2009 Thorsten, I find that using a white card can give rise to problems arising from the card picking up reflected colours from other objects. I started using a white card early on in M8 days, when the auto WB was pretty poor. I found that a reference grey card gave more accurate reference points than white and that an Expodisc was better than either grey or white card, rarely needing tweaking afterwards. I have a feeling when someone was looking into the WB setting instructions in the firmware, WB was setting more than just the colour temperature but some additional colour parameters as well. The Expodisc is especially good at catching the always difficult skin colours, particularly for blonde caucasians. Wilson Locically, the expo disc should be a mess with mixed light sources. On the other hand it's so democratic it could work I'll see if I can find one in a London shop when I go there next week because I never got around to ordering one onine (or actually; I never got around to understanding which of them would fit my cameras). Could be interesting checkin it because if you're under the shadow of a three and the sun is bursting down outside the shadow. How then do you use the Expodisc? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 12, 2009 Share #23 Posted October 12, 2009 Chris, as to be expected, you have a full spectrum of comments, some helpful, others critical. Feel free to put mine in either bag as suits you. My first observation is "been there, done that" so I believe I have a feel for what you were facing. I have spent more years that can be counted shooting this sort of stuff. Most of it was proactively importing my own lighting set up (frequently 2-3 portable studio flash heads) and shooting Hasselblad MF. I got great (technical) images and sweated my butt off moving the gear and setting up somewhere else when the best pic was "over there". In hindsight, bloody ridiculous, but probably necessary at the time. When I discovered LEICA, a great load was (literally) lifted from my shoulders. Suddenly, I was travelling lighter, working faster (I was never slow!) and turning in more appealing images. The noticeable difference was that images suddenly had a more 'natural' look to them. Why? At least partly because I was now shooting by available light, whatever the source, and using my skill and experience to correct later if necessary, which, IMHO, it always is, however you shoot. Now (sorry about the pre-amble) to your posted pics. I am sure there is no 'correct' colour balance possible in at least some of them. Not a problem! There is always a "comfortable" colour balance and this is what you should aim for, in ALL images (excluding technical product images) regardless of how well they are shot. Your example of the boy at the light table has heavily mixed light influences in it, most of which should be ignored. Specifically, the fluorescent light on the background. The boy and the light table are the main subject. Correct the image for the light on his face, that is sourced from the table. Personally, I would brighten it up a tad and attempt to direct more attention to his face. I would also probably crop into the top of the head of the girl in pink, which eliminates a lot of the fluoro background, but also pushes the eye to the boy. I realize I am talking aesthetics and composition here, but it does influence the 'look' of the image. I also realize you had the brief and not me, so there may be other reasons why you left the background in and I can images some. It seems to me that you went in with a minimum of fuss (important in these environments), possible with limited time and even maybe a budgetary restraint. Worst of all is to constantly fuss over technical crap in these situations. That needs to be "second nature" to you. Your primary concentration should be pre-visualising the subject and anticipating it. Technical stuff must be on 'auto-pilot' with brief periodic checks only. My approach to all these things is to call myself a "troubleshooter" rather than a "photographer". The point being that if you can't find the problem, how the hell can you find a solution? I suspect you found the 'problems' and solved them as best possible in the circumstances. Available light frequently demand more PP than some other lightings. Just live with it. Chris it seems to me you probably did a a damn good job in the particular situation and only you know the full extend of the problems you were solving. It's very easy for armchair critics to be just that, but doing it at the coal face is quite different. As far as your colour conundrum is concerned, I suspect the current batch of M9 profiles are far from well tuned and whatever colour balance method you, or anyone, uses, there will be a need for tweaking to get what you want. Even with improvement, which I am sure will come, that tweak will always be needed to achieve what I call a "comfortable" balance, not to be confused with "correct." The real test is the clients reaction, which I think you reported as very favourable. In the face of that, we critics can "go to hell in a hand basket!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skimmel Posted October 12, 2009 Share #24 Posted October 12, 2009 I have both the credit-card sized "keychain/pocket" one and he larger one (when I have space for it in a pocket or bag). Is the keychain size one large enough to set autoWB on the Leica? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 12, 2009 Share #25 Posted October 12, 2009 Is the keychain size one large enough to set autoWB on the Leica? The one I have is the size of a credit card. Don't know if that is the pocket or keychain. Sounds more like a pocket-size. Smaller than that would cause you trouble. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 12, 2009 Share #26 Posted October 12, 2009 Could be interesting checkin it because if you're under the shadow of a three and the sun is bursting down outside the shadow. How then do you use the Expodisc? Thorsten, You go to the subject you are taking if this is possible and use it on the incident light, just like you would on an incident light meter. You can use the Expodisc as an incident light meter as well as for WB setting. My recommendation is to get a biggish one, as it is more flexible and will still fit if you have a large lens hood fitted. I have a 77mm one. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 12, 2009 Share #27 Posted October 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Suddenly, I was travelling lighter, working faster (I was never slow!) and turning in more appealing images. The noticeable difference was that images suddenly had a more 'natural' look to them. Why? At least partly because I was now shooting by available light, whatever the source, and using my skill and experience to correct later if necessary, which, IMHO, it always is, however you shoot. It's really not very difficult to use additional lighting and still obtain a "natural look" that is more interesting than the light that is available on some shoots. Relying solely on available light and correcting only in post is certainly a simple option (and is sometimes necessary in some circumstances like those that Chris presumably found himself in) but IMO is often the choice of the hack photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share #28 Posted October 12, 2009 Thorsten / Erl / Wilson - really grateful for comments (and considering getting an ExpoDisc). Particularly grateful to Thorsten on WhiBal The one I have is the size of a credit card. Don't know if that is the pocket or keychain. Sounds more like a pocket-size. Smaller than that would cause you trouble. Stupid really but all the time I've used it I've never thought it was big enough to set a MANUAL WB in-camera. I've now been trying it and it works pretty well. To set Manual Exposure, walk over to the the area where the light's going to be tricky, hold the card at an angle where you'll get good illumination from the major light source(s) and you can set Manual WB (without bothering about focus) by shooting at a distance of 5 cms or so, so that the card fills the frame. Another set of impossible WB problems below (with Thorsten in frame . Auto WB Manual WB set against a WhiBal graycard held near to the parrot Adusted image - WB warmer and blues slightly desaturated As you can see, some possibility of aesthetic correction was possible from the neutral shot by raising colour temperature slightly and de-saturating the blues a bit (using the slider in LR). I'm NOT saying this is anywhere near perfect - and you couldn't use it for product photography () - but for the kind of reportage I do it's a workable way in. Definitely going to try working this way more. Up until now when I'd used the WhiBal I'd just shot a frame with the card somewhere in there - this never really did it for me. Obviously, I'm still going to be facing impossible colour in lots of shoots - when it's up to me I prefer to do many of these kinds of projects in B&W. However, when the client wants colour, you've got to deliver it as best you can. Given that I work without assistants, that often the budget is low, and that I sell myself as "no flash, available light photography" I've not got many options... Still one comment re the M9 though - compared to the 5D2 it's still needs work on the profile as I find it tends to over emphasise yellows in a lot of images... Thanks again gentlemen. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/99755-m9-learning-some-lessons/?do=findComment&comment=1071685'>More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share #29 Posted October 12, 2009 ... but IMO is often the choice of the hack photographer. Ian - my journalist friends call themselves "hacks" self deprecatingly. It's not a criticism - just means someone who makes their living scribbling, but who doesn't give themselves airs about being a great artist. Is a "hack" photographer something along the same lines? I hope so... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted October 12, 2009 Share #30 Posted October 12, 2009 It would be nice to be able to paint in white balance corrections in Adobe Raw, that might neatly get around many mixed light issues Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share #31 Posted October 12, 2009 It would be nice to be able to paint in white balance corrections in Adobe Raw, that might neatly get around many mixed light issues Wouldn't it just!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 12, 2009 Share #32 Posted October 12, 2009 It would be nice to be able to paint in white balance corrections in Adobe Raw, that might neatly get around many mixed light issues For architectural work, I sometimes do something very much like that using two different RAW conversions and the history brush. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted October 12, 2009 Share #33 Posted October 12, 2009 Wouldn't it just!! Yeah - I went looking for it to try to smooth out a colour flare in an image I shot on Saturday. I tried other tweaking in PS but it just didn't work very well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted October 12, 2009 Share #34 Posted October 12, 2009 For architectural work, I sometimes do something very much like that using two different RAW conversions and the history brush. Cheers, Nice idea, I will try that erm... what is the history brush? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 12, 2009 Share #35 Posted October 12, 2009 Nice idea, I will try that erm... what is the history brush? It's one of my favorite tools in Photoshop and it allows you to paint a previous state into a current state. You may want to look into it in your Photoshop manual etc. I would be lost without it. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 12, 2009 Share #36 Posted October 12, 2009 Is a "hack" photographer something along the same lines? I hope so... No, I don't think so. However, to be clear, I wasn't directing the comment at you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 12, 2009 Share #37 Posted October 12, 2009 The other way would be to start like Sean does with two different conversions, then lay one over the other as a mask then burn through the bits you want to show from the underlying background layer with a soft edged brush. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 12, 2009 Share #38 Posted October 12, 2009 Ian - my journalist friends call themselves "hacks" self deprecatingly. It's not a criticism - just means someone who makes their living scribbling, but who doesn't give themselves airs about being a great artist. Is a "hack" photographer something along the same lines? I hope so... Chris, The term "hack photographer" is generally used deprecatingly to refer to one who pumps out pulp images to a formula, usually without much imagination or expression. Some stock photographers could be said to fit this description. There is no way that I can see that description fitting what you posted. Quite the reverse. You used your imagination, avoided the formulaic method of strobe lighting, which to those in the know is distracting to such subjects and attracts attention to what you are focusing on. Rest assured you made a good fist of the assignment with the minimum of distraction and still satified the client. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Leung Posted October 12, 2009 Share #39 Posted October 12, 2009 For architectural work, I sometimes do something very much like that using two different RAW conversions and the history brush. Cheers, Hi Sean, me and my family went to Appl picking picking in Connecticut yesterday around noon time. bright sunshine and it was a beautiful day. I took some shots with the M9 and 28mm F8 or 11. the pictures seems to be like they were under exposure. one of the forum member did mention on another thread that the M9 pictures are darker than the M8. what is your opinion on this? Tks DL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share #40 Posted October 12, 2009 Chris, The term "hack photographer" is generally used deprecatingly to refer to one who pumps out pulp images to a formula, usually without much imagination or expression. Erl / Wattsy - reassured! Best - and it's been a really useful discussion for me! ALWAYS things to learn... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.