My photo needs are lighter

Post #409,610 by drook 4/28/16 7:44:49 AM 4/28/16 7:44:49 AM Reply	My photo needs are lighter I mostly use it for food photos, which I mostly take with good lighting. I mostly zoom, crop and sharpen, with a little white balance tweaking. The times I've tried to color match two photos that were off for some reason ... Yeah, good luck. -- Drew
Post #409,611 by pwhysall 4/28/16 8:05:32 AM 4/28/16 8:05:32 AM Reply	I feel ya I dread to think how I would have managed to ensure that the bride's dress was the same perceptual shade of white in ~600 wedding photos (a not atypical number of frames to end up with on a paid wedding shoot) if I were using something like Darktable.
Post #409,612 by drook 4/28/16 9:49:37 AM 4/28/16 9:49:37 AM Reply	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
Post #409,615 by Another Scott 4/28/16 10:30:28 AM 4/28/16 10:30:28 AM Reply	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.)
Post #409,616 by drook 4/28/16 11:39:20 AM 4/28/16 11:39:20 AM Reply	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
Post #409,623 by pwhysall 4/28/16 2:02:44 PM 4/28/16 2:02:44 PM Reply	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.
Post #409,627 by Another Scott 4/28/16 4:57:12 PM 4/28/16 4:57:12 PM Reply	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.)
Post #409,622 by pwhysall 4/28/16 1:54:28 PM 4/28/16 2:04:17 PM Reply	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. Edited by pwhysall April 28, 2016, 02:04:17 PM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!