On 11/6/06, AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Ah, we can now add AG to the ranks of the ExpoDisc
> > enthusiasts! As a long time user, I welcome you to the club.
>
> Hey, I've only used it ONCE in anger. Not quite an enthusiast
> yet, but sufficiently convinced that it's worth keeping around.
> This was a rather complex lighting situation that was guaranteed
> to fool the AWB. The room (church sanctuary) was lit with
> florescents, however the sun was shining through stained glass
> windows AND there was some bulb lighting behind the cross up in
> the alter area. The AWB was triggering on the stained glass
> windows or on the cross' lighting.
>
> As per usual, I took a WB sample of a white surface and tried
> that for the pictures. No go. The skin had a cadaver look to
> it. I changed lenses to the 24/2.8 and used the ExpoDisc to get
> my WB. It took two tries as I had to learn to keep the stained
> glass windows from affecting my reading. The results were
> outstanding. Almost always, my WB set for artificial lighting
> tends towards the bluish cast. In this case the WB was
> perfectly nailed.
OK, OK, we won't print your membership card up just yet . . .
Stained glass presents a real challenge for lighting balance for
obvious reasons. Regarding mixed lighting sources the Expodisc FAQ
warns that, "It will not be possible for your camera to balance to the
different color temperatures of all of the light sources at the same
time." Pointing it toward one rather than another will naturally
determine the balance it provides. For fine tuning on the spot we
have to rely on a combination of chimping and experience.
>
> Just out of curiousity, I tried adjusting the WB on the pictures
> during the RAW conversion and I couldn't get anywhere as close
> as what the ExpoDisc had done for me.
Interesting experiment. I've had the same experience. I suppose we
could get a balance as accurate if we took a lot of time and/or tried
a lot of combinations but to me similar to what some folks say about
AF vs. MF. AF may not be as absolutely accurate, but it sure saves
time and is darn close in most cases. Of course WB is more complex
and a good technique can save lots of post production work. And yes,
I know a lot of people say something that starts with, "All you have
to do is . . ." To which my reply is, I don't want to do *anything* I
don't have to do.
>
> > I'm curious, did you simply balance to the flash and shoot
> > away?
>
> Natural light only. No flash.
>
> Why the ExpoDisc may earn its keep (and for $5 it doesn't have
> to go far), is because my old Zuikos have a colorcast to them
> which does skew the WB of the digital sensors. By taking a dummy
> shot with the ExpoDisc, I can always get a customized reading
> each time I change a lens.
This continues to baffle me. In my little world of logic, WB should
be based on light coming through whatever lens is on the camera and
hitting the sensor. If a lens does indeed have a color cast, that
should be compensated correctly.
Of course each manufacturer has their own way of achieving WB and some
are more successful than others. As I recall, dpreview lauds an HP
P&S as being the most consistently accurate they've tested for AWB.
And I'm betting you find yourself getting used to having very accurate
WB right out of the camera and will find yourself using the Expodisc
more and more.
FWIW, I also have a Photovision Digital Calibration Target. It has
neutral black and neutral while on either side of the grey. I'm still
learning how to use it to optimize in-camera contrast settings.
>
> My question is where do you do put the ExpoDisc? Do you keep it
> in a pocket? On a neck strap? It's only handy if it's handy.
I'm a pocket guy. Anything hanging around my neck with the potential
to get caught on a tripod or earring is a Jerry Lewis routine just
waiting to happen.
ScottGee1
>
> AG
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|