PDA

View Full Version : Quick, set WB, +/-, shoot!



cgl88
05-25-2007, 06:18 AM
I quickly take a shot, and notice the shot is under-exposed. I set the +/- to +1 to compensate.

I take a shot under fluorescent light, and notice the white is wrong. I set it as appropriate.

...In the above two situations, what is the difference between setting +/- or WB, and using photoshop to correct them? What do you prefer? What is better? I having comfort in PS. Images are shot in JPG, not raw.

John_Reed
05-25-2007, 06:52 AM
I quickly take a shot, and notice the shot is under-exposed. I set the +/- to +1 to compensate.

I take a shot under fluorescent light, and notice the white is wrong. I set it as appropriate.

...In the above two situations, what is the difference between setting +/- or WB, and using photoshop to correct them? What do you prefer? What is better? I having comfort in PS. Images are shot in JPG, not raw.However, as long as you don't bias exposure so much that you get clipping (blown highlights or no shadow details), correcting it in PS is OK too.

As far as WB goes, OK to a certain degree, but I've had trouble, for example, when my camera was set for Tungsten lights then shooting a bunch of shots outdoors, never could quite get realistic color out of them.

It seems to me, if you try to "engineer" correct exposure, both level and WB, as you're shooting, your PS experience will be even more comfortable, giving you much more control over the finer elements of the photograph later on.

Norm in Fujino
05-25-2007, 07:23 AM
As John noted, it's generally harder to match WB in photoshop than to merely correct exposure--that's assuming the whites aren't blown. You can never restore information that simply isn't there.

I prefer to shoot raw both for ease at correcting WB but also because I believe I get better consistent results across the board due to the better handling of dynamic range and other controls. Having said that, however, I should also note that the new version of my raw converter Silkypix (http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/) also handles jpegs and allows the same ease of correcting WB on jpegs as on raw files. That makes things much easier, although doesn't do away with my fundamental reason for using raw, which is the expanded dynamic range.

cgl88
05-25-2007, 10:19 AM
Two images were under-exposed so as to preserve the sky and to avoid any blown-out exposures:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/73/50/1995073-9bbe416ae24d8a46.jpg

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/03/51/1995103-b715f7fbdc2ccbb7.jpg

If I keep within +/- 1 that is safe enough so as not to have blown out skies. My next learning will be RAW.

Bill Markwick
05-25-2007, 01:08 PM
Hi, cgl88. Well, that looks familiar - the Don Valley and the old brickworks. Here's a shot from a little farther down the river - it's really a bridge to nowhere. It used to be where Richmond Street crossed the Don, but it was sealed off when Richmond was diverted into a ramp for the Parkway.

I reduced the exposure by 2/3 EV to keep the colour of the sky. And yes, the Don really was the colour of coffee - it was a day after a heavy rain.

Bill
Panasonic FZ20

zmikers
05-25-2007, 06:08 PM
Personally, and this may come from learning photography with film, I always prefer to get it right the first time out of the camera. This being said, there are more than a few times:p where I thank god for photoshop to save my pic. This is why I always shoot RAW. But this may be a mute point now too. With advancing technology, there are some programs that can do to a jpeg that could only be done to RAW in the past. I don't have a lot of experience with them though, but have heard from posters here about them. I guess what this long winded post is trying to say is that I prefer to do my best to get it right the first time.:D

cgl88
05-26-2007, 08:36 PM
It's always best to try to get it right from the camera the first time - that way one is spending less time post-processing!

Right now I am somewhat bugged by clouds being blown out but the subject properly exposed, or the cloud/sky properly exposed but the subject underexposed. Of the two wrongs, I prefer underexposed shots: you can multiply or screen the image in photoshop to correct. I've been reading about dynamic range and the challenge of exposure when a digital camera encounters extreme dark and bright.

The worst wrong shots are when everything is blown out and over-exposed. In the latter case PS can't save the shot.

I started to play around RAW, but it appears my computer is a tad slow for the task. Mind you I have a torrent in the background. Side point: it looks like a multi-core processor would be nice :)