Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Brookfield, MA
    Posts
    1,140
    When setting manual white balance use the lighting source that you want to balance for. Illuminate the white poster board with your tungsten lamp and then set the WB manually from that image.

    Had you tried the tungsten WB setting on the camera? That should have been pretty close.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark_48 View Post
    When setting manual white balance use the lighting source that you want to balance for. Illuminate the white poster board with your tungsten lamp and then set the WB manually from that image.

    Had you tried the tungsten WB setting on the camera? That should have been pretty close.
    ok, so take a photo with the poster board lit with tungsten? got it!

    but the 2nd part, "set the WB manually from that image"? how is that done?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Brookfield, MA
    Posts
    1,140
    "yes I "attempted" a manual setting. It was done by first taking a photo of a white poster board (taken with flash on), then going to the menu, custom WB, and selecting that image. Then changing the WB on cam from AWB to "custom"."

    Same as you did before except this time using the tungsten light.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    529
    Here are my before (AWB) and and after (Custom WB) shots with the expodisc and CFL lighting. Big time dingy/yellow/orange look with the AWB. Some say it's best to adjust it themselves but I love my expodisc. Everything [usually] comes out looking right. These are two different shots, as you can tell by teh position of the dogs.
    Attached Images Attached Images   
    | Canon 7D| Canon 5D|Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM | Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS| Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 | Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II |
    my photos on flickr

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    Canon AWB under Tungsten lighting has never been impressive.
    Ouch.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by cdifoto View Post
    Canon AWB under Tungsten lighting has never been impressive.

    That seems to be it's major weakness... sunny, cloudy, or blue-ish light, it doesn't seem to have a problem. Tungsten sucks.
    | Canon 7D| Canon 5D|Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM | Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS| Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 | Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II |
    my photos on flickr

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Gintaras View Post
    i would say i have not seen a single DSLR that could reproduce WB 100% right, it is always yellowish or orange. you can tweak white balance manually but this is tricky. i also use to correct WB in dim light with PP. i see no problem with yellowish WB as long as you can change it after downloading to PC.
    Actually I do see a problem with having to manually adjust every shot. If you have a decent camera why should that be necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by michaelb View Post
    I've yet to see a dSLR that gives accurate AWB indoors, especially with incandescent lighting. Its no reason to not like a dSLR, IMO.
    What do you mean that's no reason to dislike a dSLR?? I suppose it depends on what you want to achieve. I want my photos to turn out well without PP. Thats one reason not to like a dSLR.

    overall, it makes no logical sense why a decent entry-level "professional" digital camera is not able to provide accurate White Balance. I spent near $2,000 on a my XTi cam and lenses and now I hear that every shot will have inaccurate WB, and that is just typical for a DSLR?

    How did my tiny P&S Canon cam get to be so much better at WB?

    Also, may I add that $120 for a white cap seems alittle steep.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    Hate to be the one to tell you this OP but dSLRs aren't meant to allow you to be lazy and the XTi is NOT an entry level "professional" digital camera. It's an entry level dSLR but it's nowhere near "professional". Yes, it would be great if Canon would get its AWB to be accurate under tungsten lighting but they haven't. We don't lash out, we cope. Every image you take doesn't have to have inaccurate white balance.

    Pretty soon you'll either give up or shoot RAW anyway where white balance can be adjusted after-the-fact.

    Automation never has been, nor ever will be, absolutely perfect.

    Your next step will be to flame me, but that's ok. I've seen it before, and I'll see it again.
    Last edited by cdifoto; 02-25-2008 at 06:59 PM.
    Ouch.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Brookfield, MA
    Posts
    1,140
    You may also find that your DSLR doesn't have as much vibrance or apparent sharpness as your SX100 seems to have. The P&S cameras tend to do alot of processing in the camera so it looks good right out of the box and this likely includes AWB. With the DSLR there is some expectation that you will do some post processing such as sharpening and to some degree white balancing. Tungsten lighting doesn't have the full color spectrum as sunlight, it tends to be warmer which imparts the yellower hue to it. Although the camera gives an image that has a warmer tone to it, it might be what you actually want in the image to give a sense of warmth that tungsten lighting can do. Best to shoot RAW and then tweak it however you want the final results to be.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,565
    Quote Originally Posted by techiedude21 View Post
    Actually I do see a problem with having to manually adjust every shot. If you have a decent camera why should that be necessary?



    What do you mean that's no reason to dislike a dSLR?? I suppose it depends on what you want to achieve. I want my photos to turn out well without PP. Thats one reason not to like a dSLR.

    overall, it makes no logical sense why a decent entry-level "professional" digital camera is not able to provide accurate White Balance. I spent near $2,000 on a my XTi cam and lenses and now I hear that every shot will have inaccurate WB, and that is just typical for a DSLR?

    How did my tiny P&S Canon cam get to be so much better at WB?

    Also, may I add that $120 for a white cap seems alittle steep.
    Like everything in life you get what you put in. If you don't want to take the extra steps to make your images better then suffer poor image quality. I don't think you will find much sympathy from this crowd.
    5D MK III, 50D, ELAN 7E, 17-40mm 4, Sigma 10mm 2.8 fisheye, 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS, 30mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 580 EX, 430 EX speedlight, Pocket wizard flex and mini.
    Canon G10

    Pentax P30, 50mm 2.0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •