Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2014 · Expodisc test shots ...

  
 
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Expodisc test shots ...


2 x 2 matrix that is two temps @ diff exposures (all 5.6)

2 @ 3950K +15 (1/640 & 1/160) reading from direct toward sun
2 @ 7750K +15 (1/200 & 1/40) reading from open sky illuminating shadow side (not overhead)

Points of interest are building (key & shadow), grass & sky.

Time of day appx. 4:00 PM







Dec 11, 2014 at 10:51 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Expodisc test shots ...


Ok, I am reading this as 3950 on the left and 7750 on the right. It's interesting that tint is the same. I get very different tints as well as temperature, but of course I have been doing sunrise.

Not making sense to me now. I would expect two blown out shots. Ok, you shot 4 exposures, why? I would have expected 1 each exposure for shade and one each exposure for sun.

It appears to me that the upper left is the best building and the lower right is the best sky/grass (at least for color, but not for exposure).

How would you blend these shots? The upper right has the best sky/grass exposure, and I think the grass color is also good, but the sky is off.



Dec 12, 2014 at 11:51 AM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Expodisc test shots ...


Well ...

Top right is shot #1 (#896 ref for me) @ 5.6 1/160 (aperture priority metering)
3950 +15 (custom WB reading from direct sunlight)

Top left is #2 @ 5.6 1/200 (aperture priority metering)
7750 +15 (custom WB reading from opposite sky)


Bottom left is shot #3 @ 5.6 1/40 (manual exposure from reading skylight @ expodisk EV exposing for shadow)
7750 +15 (custom WB reading from opposite sky)

Bottom right is shot #4 @ 5.6 1/640 (manual exposure from reading direct sunlight @ expodisk EV exposing for key)
3950 +15 (custom WB reading from direct sunlight)

(sorry @ CCW presentation)

A few things to take away here:

1) Despite changing the color balance (in the first two) based on the light differences illuminating the key vs. shadow sides of the building, the exposure value assigned by the camera was relatively unchanged.

2) Shots 3 & 4 are re-shoots based on the exposure values presented from their respective readings.

3) The expodisk exposure reading difference from key to shadow is 4 stops @ 1/40 vs. 1/640

4) The camera readings are essentially an averaging of the scene @ split the difference 1/160 being two stops away from 1/40 and two stops away from 1/640 In that regard, it is neither a correct exposure for the key, nor the shadow.

5) The influence of correct exposure impacts the WB significantly in addition to the WB temp alone

6) The combination of correct exposure and correct color temperature of #3 has rendered the shadow portions of the building very neutral ... suggesting the effectiveness of the expodisc at doing its job as a tool seems quite good.

7) The color of the grass looks good in #1, and the color of the key side of the building and color of the key portion of the sidewalk measure neutral ... BUT, the building whites are blown out due to the camera getting a wrong exposure to go along with a corrected color. This suggesting that the color correction of using the expodisk again, doing its intended job.

However, since I only used the CC portion of the expodisc info and relied on the reflective metering of the camera, rather than gathering an incident reading from the expodisc, I didn't take full advantage of what the expodisc offers us. Realizing this, I shot #3 & #4 based on manual exposures derived from expodisc exposure calibration.

8) Taking the underexposed image of #2 (TLC) and raising it appx. 1.3 stops in post (see below) effectively neutralizes the warmth being applied to offset the cool lighting. Obviously, that overexposes the key side and the sky, but we are dealing with (according to expodisc EV readings) a 4 stop difference in lighting, so it would stand to reason that such would occur.

9) Our utilization (I said it would be a thinking persons tool) of what to do once armed with this is still going to be at our discretion.

Still have to digest this a bit more ... and will run another set of test shots. More to follow regarding utilty.

My take away here is really a heightened confirmation of my belief in knowing the amount of light befalling onto your subject is preferential to the amount being reflected by the subject (which is why I cross check/use Sunny 16).

This doesn't change our challenges with such dynamic range of EV or dynamic range of lighting hue, but I do think it suggests that we need to be more cognizant of the fact that BOTH have influence that should not be relegated to the "average" of the camera's assessments for either color or exposure. I wish I would have taken an AWB along with an AP (thought I did, but I think I deleted it in camera) for comparison, but I can still deduce what it would have been from seeing how the relationships of these four change with corresponding EV and WB adjustments.








Edited on Dec 12, 2014 at 01:08 PM · View previous versions



Dec 12, 2014 at 12:17 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Expodisc test shots ...


Once you have correct wb for various parts of the scene, how will you apply it to an image? There is no way to select a part of an image and change the temperature and tint. So far as I know I can only do this in ACR on a raw or tiff image.

Ideas I am playing with are to make a shadow version and a sun version and manually blend them. (Terrible idea unless I do it via HDR).

Have both versions open and use the sun as a base and then go to the shade version and put an eyedropper into a shadow area and get readings. Select the same place in the sun version and do color balance and apply it only to the shade areas.

It occurs to me that for my narrow niche of sunset/sunrises, I can let the sky color go where it wants and color balance for the shade. Nobody knows what the sky looks like and no two are the same.

Its interesting that you are finding different wb according to exposure (note 5). The directions say to expose your wb sample at mid point. O EV. Thats what I have been doing. I have not thought of using the expodisc to determine exposure, thats easy enough, I need one that is bright enough to see detail in shadows and dark enough that nothing is blown. Usually 3 stops of bracketing is enough.












Dec 12, 2014 at 01:01 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Expodisc test shots ...


ben egbert wrote:

I can let the sky color go where it wants and color balance for the shade. Nobody knows what the sky looks like and no two are the same.


+1 ... probably leaving WB for the sky color @ 5500K or so @ daylight (5500K being the composite of warm/cool in ambient midday). Departures to the cool/warm side are thus revealed accordingly. Artistic liberty to NOT neutralize the sky are of course an option, rendering. Imo, it is key to know which of your light is subject vs. illuminant ... i.e. the shadows are NOT being illuminated by the sunset, thus they should not be neturalize/corrected to the sunset hue WB. Leaving them at 5500K will of course leave them cool as they will be absent of the warmth (warm & cool composing to 5500K). It mostly just depends if you want to present cool snow or neutral snow in your fill/shadow areas, or do you want to present your fill as key.

I need one that is bright enough to see detail in shadows and dark enough that nothing is blown. Usually 3 stops of bracketing is enough.

In my test at that time of day ... the reading was 4 stops apart. Former readings with an incident meter of key vs. shadow near mid-day indicated about 2.5 or three stops. So depending on time of day, three stops might be leaving a bit on the table, with some scenarios possibly needing even more (but three is still in the ballpark for correctable range).


I guess the take-away is that there is nothing new under the sun ...

I've long espoused that we are really taking two different images because we are lighting the scene with two different sets of light (both @ EV & WB). My .02 on it is that they may need to be composted rather than averaged or HDR'd when we can clearly define the different areas. Then a gradient, feather, opacity or partial blend might be warranted to balance them to give a natural rendering that emulates the gradient changes that occur in natural lighting.

In some scenes, we can clearly make this distinction (backlit mountains) ... in others (dappled branches, etc.) it is much tougher. The key here is to assess whether your light color is subject light or illuminant light relative to what it is that you want to show your viewer and what/where might you accept compromises.

We talk a lot about "as seen" ... and our eye/brain accommodation makes the adjustments for the different portions of the scene. To my way of thinking, that would suggest that we would need to do the same in with our PP to represent an "as seen". How much effort are we willing to put forth in such an endeavor ... highly subjective. Like I've said many times before ... I've never thrown a blue snowball ... as always, your image, your call.




Dec 12, 2014 at 01:22 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Expodisc test shots ...


If nothing else, using the exopdisk is a teaching tool. And learning to use it is a learning curve for sure. Just the simple jobs of remembering to turn AF back on (my camera won't shoot unless it gets focus).

I also forgot which order I shot sky versus light on my last thing. I am assuming the high temp value is sky, but for some reason it produced a very blue shadow.

Here is my samples.

First with 5650 -67
2nd with 2800 -75
3rd uses foreground of 1 and sky of 2.

I am not sure which wb was sky and which was sunlight. Any guesses? Why is 2 so blue?









5650-67







2800-75







sky from 2, foreground from 1




Dec 12, 2014 at 02:04 PM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Expodisc test shots ...


I'm unclear regarding your goals for this test. Here's what I see.

You chose a scene with two different sources of illumination: late afternoon sun and skylight. One is decidedly warm, the other decidedly cool. It looks like you chose to measure WB of the two sources separately, but the scene is a mixture of both.

Since both light sources illuminate the subject, I would have done a reading from the subject back to camera position where both sources were striking the Expodisc. I would have shot RAW and used the custom WB as a starting point, then moved one direction or the other until I thought I had a pleasing WB. I probably would choose a setting where the shadows are still cool, then moved them a little towards neutral with a WB layer and mask or NIK's Viveza.

In reality I doubt I would have used any WB tool, be Expodisc or gray card or X-Rite target. I would have just shot RAW probably with either WB set to daylight or possibly open shade. Final WB would be partially depending on purpose - if it is pictorial, I'd probably go warm. If it was for commercial use, I'd stay warm but closer to neutral.

Tools are only as useful as their ability to help achieve a goal. They are no better than their appropriate use. I've seen people who didn't know how to properly use a light meter who would have done better just using the "sunny 16" rule.



Dec 12, 2014 at 02:28 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Expodisc test shots ...


#2 is so blue because when you take a reading of that amount of warm yellow/red sky, it makes a corresponding offset of a whole bunch of blue in an attempt to derive a neutral. Well, the amount of blue needed to be added to the other portions is not that amount, thus an overage of blue.

I'm liking the direction of your last one ... but it also raises a point @ gradient, as the sky and foreground appear to be closer than the mid-distance mountains as they are rather magenta. I know there is "purple mountain majesty" and I think this is part of that prismatic gradient transition. Thus, it might even warrant three zones of cc to place things where you want/see/balance according to how you desire to present to your viewer(s).

As always, S&P to taste.







Dec 12, 2014 at 02:32 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Expodisc test shots ...


Hi Kent. If you check my first shot, the snow is neutral. I checked it before and after the HDR blend.

I am purposely avoiding any added saturation. Using a dark shot gets me a lot, and then some curves adds some more.

I do have a bit of sunrise color reflected on some house eves, but I like the white eves on the right house. The wall color also looks right.



Dec 12, 2014 at 02:40 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Expodisc test shots ...


dmacmillan wrote:
I'm unclear regarding your goals for this test. Here's what I see.

You chose a scene with two different sources of illumination: late afternoon sun and skylight. One is decidedly warm, the other decidedly cool. It looks like you chose to measure WB of the two sources separately, but the scene is a mixture of both.

Since both light sources illuminate the subject, I would have done a reading from the subject back to camera position where both sources were striking the Expodisc. I would have shot RAW and used the custom WB as a starting point, then moved one direction or
...Show more

I came up with the idea of an expodisk, Kent got one and posted this thread on its use.

My main purpose here is because I am sick to death of having FM'rs telling me I have a color cast. It is absolutely impossible for me to know other than by some scientific measurement. It's become such a problem that I have considered selling my camera gear.



Dec 12, 2014 at 02:42 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Expodisc test shots ...


dmacmillan wrote:
Since both light sources illuminate the subject


But that's the entire point ... when they DON'T both illuminate the subject due to orientation, you have multiple WB's in play @ different portions of the scene. You can take an AWB, but that is not a corrected WB for the different portions. That isn't to say that you MUST correct WB for multiple portions ... but if you WANT to ...

The extreme example is that of a totally backlit subject (example forthcoming). Sometimes we use fill flash to even out that luminance difference a bit. Fill flash (gelled) also serves to balance background/foreground WB ... longstanding technique of professionals due to the mismatch in color temps. This is the EXACT same concept, with respect to WB and luminance, only without the use of fill/gels. No diff in concept, just diff @ tool/method.

Some portrait photographers use gelled flash, some use colored reflectors ... some don't bother. The choice to balance mismatched background/foreground WB or leave it mismatched is certainly a creative decision. It's just that when shooting larger foregrounds/backgrounds we really don't have the option of applying gelled lights and colored reflectors ... thus leaving it to selective WB adjustment @ camera / post ... if you WANT to balance the differently lit portions. Some folks do, some don't.

+1 @ tools / use.

Incident meter / reflective meter / sunny 16 / Expodisc ... I already know how to use the first 3.

First outing with Expodisc ... gotta learn the tool before you can use the tool well ... thus the test shots.



Dec 12, 2014 at 02:57 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Expodisc test shots ...


Sometimes we learn as much or more from our errors as our successes.

RR Sign


5.6 1/640
3950 +15
PP CC to 6100 +15 (not shown)

5.6 1/40
9000 +22
PP CC to 5450 +11 (not shown)


Expodisc pointed toward direct sun and toward opposite sky. Looking at the second image, it appears overcorrected too warmly. I had anticipated a correct WB from the custom setting. I suspect that I aimed my custom WB too low toward the horizon, capturing too much blue (creating the warm overcompensation). Also, I had a telephoto setting 78mm EQ) which may have not represented the full collection of incident light falling onto the subject. NOTE: See next post.

As anticipated, the point/area being used for setting the custom WB will have significant impact on the adjustment being applied.

It is also interesting to note that in order to neutralize the black X (at selected point) and the screwhead, I came up with two different values depending on which baseline I began from. I also note that working from the lesser exposure, I could lift it the 4 stops diff, but it did come with some accompanying noise (as one might expect), but it wasn't quite as much as I would have thought.

Take away @ utilization / application is still under formulation.











Edited on Dec 13, 2014 at 10:47 AM · View previous versions



Dec 13, 2014 at 10:29 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Expodisc test shots ...


Figuring out where the source light is coming from is going to be a problem. I finally realized that some of the light on my sunrise shadow area was coming from the red overhead clouds.

Also focal length will be critical. I should have zoomed in on the bright areas when doing the sky epodisk exposure, instead I had a mix of sky/foreground, the same as the shot itself.

If we need to find neutral areas and do further corrections in post, it makes me wonder if we really need expodisk?




Dec 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Expodisc test shots ...


Ben,

I think this shot will be a bit revealing to the value ... as we learn about its utility.

This shot is 9000 + 22 using the Expodisc

It is "spot on" @ neutral black and neutral white (signage, not paint).

Noting the 9000 +22 is the same as the overly warm RR sign ... I made the ASSUMPTION that they were being illuminated by the same light since they were facing the same direction. Apparently, they were not, as the amount of influence from height of building, trees, etc. had the courthouse with more direct, low blue (and nailed it), while the larger expanse of open sky for the RR sign was of a diff temp.

I've long suggested that color falls off similar as luminance (energy distribution).

If we are in studio and have a white background with cross-lighting set up with a warm gel on the left and a cool gel on the right, we'd see a gradient from L-R @ warm/neutral/cool. In that regard, there would be a point at which an ideal WB exists neutral, but choosing that point exactly might be a challenge. Our ambient studio is much like taking those two lights and perpetually re-adjusting them.

Your question @ validity of tool vs. just doing it in post ... akin to Doug's point @ his approach (which is what I have historically done also) ... is a well reasoned question.

I think the answer is in two parts.

A) In the image of the courthouse door/stairs, we see that the expodisc has performed as advertised. This is a jpg with no adjustment and the exposure and WB are quite good (the scene has its nuances also @ overhang vs. upstairs). We can also note the change in color with the change in luminance here again @ uneven lighting the deeper/higher under the overhang.

I will need to make no (technical) adjustments to this image, and can leave as is or go straight to artistic rendering, if desired.

B) Different color of light carries different amounts of energy, particular the variance between red channel vs. blue channel. The combination of WB and exposure are joined at the hip as we saw above in the TLC yellowish version of the courthouse (where I used the ED WB and the camera exposure value) and warrants that exposure consideration include color energy value.

I'd be very curious to see how the use of the ED performs with a red rose in sunlight. As you know that is a very challenging channel oriented shot that many cameras reflective metering systems fail to do well.


My choice of the oblique perspective on the courthouse images (4 set) at that late hour was indeed a torture test, and I think it very clearly shows the magnitude of the mixed lighting (luminance and WB) that we operate in. Quite simply, no single WB is going to present the courthouse as "white" on all surfaces at that time of day. From that, we have to make decisions about what it is that we are trying to achieve.

Ideally, I can shoot the courthouse with rock solid registration and compost it such that all parts (sky, grass, South sides, West sides, etc.) are rendered with similar balance rather than having a single image that compromises various areas based on a single temp.

The courthouse is essentially my mountain, in that it faces East and is backdropped by sunsets. A future shot of the courthouse will be very much akin to some of your efforts. For that, I will certainly be using the ED to assess the diff of luminance and color of the backlight vs. the frontlight (which may also include floodlights @ near twilight)

My perspective here is also that much like exposure ... the closer you get to proper exposure, the less adjustment (artifact inducing, etc.) you perform in post and subsequently retain a higher IQ. Much like the reason I prefer to shoot with no AA filter bodies (needs less sharpening applied in PP). From that, the closer we start our WB, the less we have to PP it. Note of course, that one must know what their objectives are @ push/pull a color toward neutral or toward mood/vibe/ambiance.

As Doug mentioned ... tools are just that. The degree to which we understand them and desire to apply them is inherently upon us to discern. I think this last courthouse door shot best illustrates the "common" utilization. However, when it comes to such uncommon and challenging scenarios as we project our objectives, we are going to have to learn to write our own book on how to put this tool to use to accomplish our individual and more challenging objectives ... i.e. don't throw the baby out with the bath water just yet.







Edited on Dec 13, 2014 at 11:48 AM · View previous versions



Dec 13, 2014 at 10:54 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Expodisc test shots ...


I suspect my subjects will not be as critical as this sample. If there are no neutrals in the scene to start with (snow being one exception) it will be hard to find small errors. But with man made things or with people, wb gets to be more critical.

My issue has been with blues and magentas and cyans. My processing tend to emphasize these, or perhaps my camera.

But you are correct, we are going to need to know where the key light is coming from. Just as a sanity check, if taking into the light itself, the exopdisk reference should also be taken into the light.

I may also experiment with the warming filters, I may want my sunsets/sunrises to be warmer than 18% grey. But warming an image in post is not hard to do once the colors are balanced.

Postscript.

I saw that same mountain scene last night while coming home from dinner but at sunset rather than sunrise. The light on the mountain snow was fantastic. No sky color, but lots of reflected snow. I will be watching for another replay of that. But I already know my view toward the setting sun is blocked by buildings, so I am going to have to aim a bit higher in the sky.

The snow will be red, so it will not be helpful as a neutral.



Dec 13, 2014 at 11:17 AM
lighthound
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Expodisc test shots ...


Well? It's been a few months now men. How did you guy's make out with this little device? Have you mastered it's use?

After seeing Ben recently mention the Expodisc in another thread, I almost ordered one but as Ben later explained, they are not a "fix all" so I held off and did a little research on them and read many reviews as I am considering buying one of them. In my searching I stumbled across this thread. Based on the discussion here in this thread I suspect the raving reviews might not be completely true.

I read the above discussion but I don't see where this device was used correctly according to my research. There is a LOT of reading in the discussion above and it kinda sorta made my head hurt a little at times so I might have missed it.

From what I read & understand, (basically what dmacmillan mentioned) the proper way to use these is to stand at your target and aim the camera back to where you will be standing to take the shot in order to get the correct WB reading. And before you take the shot from this "target" location you first adjust your exposure properly and then then snap a shot to use for your new custom WB.

Obviously this can not be done in every situation, for example distant landscapes, so I'm still not clear on how that is properly done. I have read that in those situations you should simply point the lens directly at the light source and being mindful of not standing inside shadows if the overall scene is sunny to obtain the correct WB. I'm also not sure about the proper way to adjust exposure for such distant landscape shots. Do you ignore the expodisc after getting the WB reading and just use the reflective metering of the camera or do you use the expodisc to take an incident reading? And if so, how?

I'm just curious as to what you guys have learned in the past few months using this device and if you feel they are helpful. I understand that tricky lighting situations can render this thing to cumbersome and/or useless but in general, are they worth it?



Mar 03, 2015 at 09:26 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Expodisc test shots ...


I have not used mine because this is off season and I have had nothing worth shooting. I played with it. You need to point it at the light source, the sun, moon etc. Sometimes hard to do. The sun is often out of the line of sight, and the moon is very small and dark behind this expodisk.

I will try it Thursday morning for a moonlit shot. I plan to use 200mm and maybe iso 800 or so to get the reference shot pointed at the moon and then mount a 17TSE for the real shot. Hope this works. I expect a WB around 2800,8 from past experience.

For daylight work, I would probably use my McBeth or just a grey card.




Mar 03, 2015 at 10:20 AM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Expodisc test shots ...


lighthound wrote:
Well? It's been a few months now men. How did you guy's make out with this little device? Have you mastered it's use?

I'm just curious as to what you guys have learned in the past few months using this device and if you feel they are helpful. I understand that tricky lighting situations can render this thing to cumbersome and/or useless but in general, are they worth it?

What is your expected use? What problem are you trying to solve?

There are different approaches to setting WB. The Expodisc should be used at the subject pointed back to the camera and it will give you the color temp of all the light sources averaged together. In a situation like the one in the original post, if you use a custom WB created using the Expodisc, the WB on the building won't be "correct" on either the parts illuminated by sun and the parts in shadow illuminated by skylight. The proper way to handle that scene would be to used WB layers with masks.

The expodisc could be useful under some circumstances, such as portraits taken under a canopy of leaves. There can be a lot of green reflected on the subject and the Expodisc would help.

Still, I prefer using the X-Rite Color Checker passport. I just shoot RAW, usually with the camera set to AWB (as more of an exposure control). You just need to shoot a frame of the target in each lighting situation and take care of WB in post. The advantage of this method is that you create a custom profile to be applied to the images. This not only addresses the WB issue but also helps address the way your camera/lens combination captures color. For instance, the Canon 5D2, which I use, can push reds. The custom profile helps and can really make a difference skin tone.

Any WB tool, be it a WhiBal card, an Expodisc or the Color Checker can do more harm than good if the photographer just blindly applies the results.

BTW, here's a review of the Color Checker: http://www.slrlounge.com/review-x-rite-color-checker-passport/



Mar 03, 2015 at 01:03 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Expodisc test shots ...


Thanks for the link and your explanation. I have used the Passport for several years but usually forget to get a shot at the scene, I used it mostly to make a camera profile and trust the camera AWB for landscapes. But I have been getting too many color criticisms so I am going further.

The passport needs to be handheld by me most times as I am alone. For some shots, it is too dark, especially a moonlit shot with a 20 second exposure. That is why I plan to use the ED for my upcoming shot at Arches under a full moon.

I sometimes just take a picture of the moon and have gotten similar WB readings to the ED. Moonlit WB is really tough.

For landscapes, I will continue to use the Passport handheld. I have done exactly as the link explained for this.




Mar 03, 2015 at 01:13 PM
lighthound
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Expodisc test shots ...


Thank you both for the info.

dmac - I think I'll look into the color checker. Ben had suggested that as well, so that's the second time it's been brought into my radar. I've seen it mentioned on many other threads and websites as well. For certain shots I can see how this would be a big help albeit a little cumbersome.

I'm not sure if you have read any of my other threads asking for critique but colors are a HUGE challenge/obstacle for me. I'm partially color blind (R/G) and I'm looking for any way I can eliminate my pathetic eyes from the equation when it comes to color issues in my photo's.

I understand that the final "feel" of an image is a personal choice (warm/cool) but I have no idea where my images are to begin with. I feel like I'm handcuffed and have blinders on. It's kind of hard to "do my thing" when I can't even get to the starting line so to speak. The word frustrating would be an understatement.

It's been suggested that perhaps I start developing my B&W skills and forget about colors but that's not an option for me. I do see colors (well, mostly) and I want to capture them the best I can so that in post I don't accidently screw something up trying to correct various tints or overall color cast issues. The other thing that gets me in trouble is that I have a bad tendency to bump up vib and sat to make the colors that I can see pop more to my eyes. And that (I suspect) is when bad things start to happen.

I'm a landscape and wildlife kinda guy but mostly landscapes because I don't have easy access to a lot of critters without driving 3 hours. As such, I do shoot inside the woods often (waterfalls & streams) and have to fight the green cast that it presents.

Any advise you have based on all that would be greatly appreciated. Until then I'm off to look into your link and anything else I can find on the color checker.

Thanks!




Mar 03, 2015 at 02:12 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.