IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 2 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I assume PS has something for that?
What I would want is to have a reference shot, then be able to pick a point on the reference and a point on a target shot and tell it, "Color balance so the target matches the reference."
--

Drew
New It looks like Nikon says you should fix it in the camera first.
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/article/fubpbfls/setting-white-balance.html

I sympathize with you folks that have to edit hundreds of photos. It must be a royal pain.

PS may continue to be the go-to tool for pros, but it's far too expensive for me, and the continual upgrade treadmill makes it even less appealing.

I use PMView and Picasa for my very humble photo editing needs. PMView can be scripted, and Picasa's "I feel lucky" often does a pretty good job.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who figures that Google is going to be the entity that continues to be the player that pushes "free" (or low-cost) software forward. Not one of the Linux houses.)
New You definitely start there
You can adjust for natural vs. fluorescent vs. incandescent lights and get pretty close. But when you're doing an album or a collage you can't judge shots stand-alone, but by how closely they match every other shot.

For mine, I do step-by-step tutorials. If the food changes color between shots, it's going to look like I'm assembling shots from multiple sessions. Which (just between you and me) I've actually done, but you wouldn't know because I did take the time to color match them.
--

Drew
New Nope
The whole point of shooting raw is that you don't have to faff about with that shit when you should be focusing* on composition.

Fiddle about with white balance, chimping like a bastard while you do it, literally hundreds of times on a wedding shoot?

fuck. that. shit.**

That said, my 6D does a pretty decent job of landing the right WB value the vast majority of the time. The ability to apply a consistent WB setting across multiple photos is what's gold. It doesn't have to be far off between shots to be noticeable.

And let's hear less of the "far too expensive". It's £8/month for PS and LR. I spend more than that on crisps at the pub. It's 4 litres of petrol. I bet your internet/tv/phone package is way more.


*see what I did thar?

**That article looks very much like it's aimed at people shooting JPEG. For very boring technical reasons, you can't change the WB on a JPEG like you can on a raw image.
New Interesting.
Thanks for the corrections.

I've done very limited RAW picture-taking with my Canon G1X. I haven't seen the benefit yet (I'm not saying there isn't any!), and it does slow things down.

I knew that RAW was a kinda-sorta pre-processed data file, but didn't know the details. Thanks.

Just to amplify what you said:

Photo.net:

Steve Dunn , Mar 02, 2011; 02:54 p.m.

I'm coming at this from the Canon side of things, so I can't say with absolute certainty that this applies to all brands, but as far as I know it does.

If you're shooting RAW, your white balance setting doesn't affect the actual image data in the RAW file. It does affect the image displayed on the camera's LCD (which is a JPEG embedded within the RAW file for most Canon models, and probably similar for other brands). Since the embedded JPEG is what's typically used for any histograms and over/under-exposure warnings displayed by the camera, it affects those, too. So if you're using anything displayed on the camera to help you judge whether you got the shot right, then the white balance could be important in helping you make that judgment.

When you bring the RAW image into an image editor/RAW converter on your computer, the white balance you set in the camera should be irrelevant, with the possible exception that the software may use it as a default when it first presents the image (but then you can choose any WB you want, of course).

The same generally applies to other processing parameters that you can set in the camera, such as picture styles, sharpness, noise reduction*, and colour space. Shooting parameters (such as aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and any settings such as exposure compensation which affect the camera's choice of any of those parameters), of course, affect RAW images because aperture and shutter speed change the amount of light reaching the sensor and ISO affects the gain of the sensor's analog amplifiers.

I shoot RAW almost exclusively, and usually use auto WB in the camera. I also find it's close enough most of the time for the embedded JPEG and all the things the camera does with it, and then I can set whatever WB I want when I'm processing the images on my computer.

*: Many cameras have two completely separate types of noise reduction. I'm talking about the ordinary one that tries to reduce the noise seen in higher-ISO shots, with the unfortunate side-effect of blurring fine detail. Generally, that's not applied to RAW files. I'm not talking about long-exposure noise reduction, or dark frame subtraction, in which after a long exposure is completed, the camera closes the shutter, takes a second exposure of the same length, and then subtracts it from the original exposure, to get rid of things like thermal noise and hot pixels; that one, at least in Canon bodies, does affect the RAW file.


The cheap CC is $10/month here. It's a lot for something that I might use once or twice a year (if that). We use the TV every day. ;-)

But thanks for the reminder. $120/yr is a lot better than $500+ every couple of years or so.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who only has intentional exposure to Adobe software these days via its PDF stuff, and that has gotten to be about the most horrible way to fill out a simple form ever invented.)
New Re: I assume PS has something for that?
Not PS, LR.

You can set a white point and apply it to all your pictures.

ETA: More specifically, you can copy and paste adjustments (crop/rotate, colour, gradients, spot removals, etc. - basically anything you can do to an image in LR, you can C&P) from image to image (or images), and you can save them as presets, and stuff like that.
Expand Edited by pwhysall April 28, 2016, 02:04:17 PM EDT
     I'm too old for this shit - (drook) - (48)
         I know that song. - (static)
         Yeap. - (malraux) - (26)
             Me too. - (pwhysall) - (25)
                 Meh - (scoenye) - (24)
                     Too much configuration, not enough apps - (malraux) - (23)
                         That's about the size of it. - (pwhysall) - (20)
                             That's about what I figured - (scoenye) - (19)
                                 Eh, no. - (pwhysall) - (18)
                                     It's great for trying options - (drook) - (9)
                                         Speaking specifically to the photo angle - (pwhysall) - (8)
                                             My photo needs are lighter - (drook) - (7)
                                                 I feel ya - (pwhysall) - (6)
                                                     I assume PS has something for that? - (drook) - (5)
                                                         It looks like Nikon says you should fix it in the camera first. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                             You definitely start there - (drook)
                                                             Nope - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                                                 Interesting. - (Another Scott)
                                                         Re: I assume PS has something for that? - (pwhysall)
                                     So, it is not ready for *your* desktop - (scoenye) - (7)
                                         LibreOffice 5.1 is very good, also too. - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                             It is - (scoenye) - (5)
                                                 I haven't used it in a while - (hnick) - (4)
                                                     I have used Draw for various things, but not that. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                         Looks like it might be useful. - (hnick) - (1)
                                                             Sounds good. Remember - LibreOffice runs on Winders and MacOS too. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                     Never used the office suites for that - (scoenye)
                         True - (Steve Lowe)
                         That about sums it up. - (static)
         I have one for experimention. Hane not booted it in a month -NT - (boxley)
         Proprietary video drivers? - (scoenye) - (10)
             Dunno yet, going to spend some more time on it tonight -NT - (drook) - (9)
                 Depending on the symptoms... - (scoenye) - (8)
                     "whining detractors" ;-) - (malraux) - (6)
                         At least I can get it to work again - (scoenye) - (5)
                             I don't use Windows. What's your point? -NT - (malraux) - (4)
                                 That they all have warts -NT - (scoenye) - (3)
                                     From a desktop perspective, Linux has more than OSX in my experience -NT - (malraux) - (2)
                                         As it so happens, I ended up getting a MacBook dropped in my lap last evening - (scoenye) - (1)
                                             EveryMac has lots of good info. - (Another Scott)
                     Already tried nuking the profiles, no luck -NT - (drook)
         I had a similar issue updating a machine a while ago. - (Another Scott) - (4)
             Win 7 to Win 10. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                 Yeah, yeah. We'll see. ;-) (Thanks.) -NT - (Another Scott)
             Got it running again. Lenovo Thinkpad T61. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                 Battery life? What's that? - (drook)
         Success - (drook) - (1)
             :-) Woot! -NT - (Another Scott)
         You, me, and Danny Glover. -NT - (CRConrad)

Thanks for noticing.
110 ms