Author Topic: White balance and studio strobes (Read 29514 times)

SNP · « **Reply #25 on:** September 15, 2011, 21:26 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 15, 2011, 20:31

Quote from: SNP on September 15, 2011, 19:55
respect your right to do any workflow you please, and obviously it works for you...but I don't know why anyone would shoot jpeg when you can shoot raw. I just wouldn't. the only time I might do this is if shooting editorial that is being fed directly to media (and I nail in-camera in these scenarios)....or if I'm traveling and shooting personal images that will never be processed as 'work'. I'm quite surprised when you say that you shoot in jpeg. you've said it a few times here.

Because I've tried shooting in RAW ... and couldn't find any significant advantage ... but lots of disadvantages. The objective is to get it right in-camera as opposed to doing it wrong and then fannying about in RAW for hours of post-processing trying to correct all the mistakes you made during the shoot. If I did all that nonsense then I wouldn't be able to spend as much time as I do on the golf course ... and that would be a very bad thing. Why not just shoot it right first time? Much easier IMHO.

to each his own. personally, I shoot raw even if I'm not making any corrections. it's always my goal to achieve in camera as much as possible, but I think you're oversimplifying, as well as seriously undervaluing post-processing. a good deal of art can and does happen in the darkroom, or the digital darkroom as it were...

RacePhoto · « **Reply #26 on:** September 15, 2011, 22:43 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 15, 2011, 20:31

Quote from: SNP on September 15, 2011, 19:55
respect your right to do any workflow you please, and obviously it works for you...but I don't know why anyone would shoot jpeg when you can shoot raw. I just wouldn't. the only time I might do this is if shooting editorial that is being fed directly to media (and I nail in-camera in these scenarios)....or if I'm traveling and shooting personal images that will never be processed as 'work'. I'm quite surprised when you say that you shoot in jpeg. you've said it a few times here.

Because I've tried shooting in RAW ... and couldn't find any significant advantage ... but lots of disadvantages. The objective is to get it right in-camera as opposed to doing it wrong and then fannying about in RAW for hours of post-processing trying to correct all the mistakes you made during the shoot. If I did all that nonsense then I wouldn't be able to spend as much time as I do on the golf course ... and that would be a very bad thing. Why not just shoot it right first time? Much easier IMHO.

One more vote for the I shoot JPG hat. For myself I have some other reasons, usually deadlines and speed, but even so, sometimes I feel like people are flogging themselves into being true believers by shooting RAW. The size, the conversion, the time, and in most cases a waste because you can get the same results using JPG imaging.

BTW if I want to make darkroom changes and modifications, I open the JPG and save it as a TIF. Edit the TIF and save it as a JPG. Done...

Back to the original question, yes, or no, or whatever. I shoot with strobes and daylight color balanced twist tubes nVision brand because of their color. Auto. It's not a huge problem, and minor corrections are just as easy as if I went the whole RAW route. I find more trouble shooting outdoors in natural light, with clouds, time of day and all kinds of variation is natural Sunlight.

The often quoted and repeated Kodak Color Temperature guidelines

Temperature Typical Sources

1000K Candles; oil lamps
2000K Very early sunrise; low effect tungsten lamps
2500K Household light bulbs
3000K Studio lights, photo floods
4000K Clear flashbulbs
5000K Typical daylight; electronic flash
5500K The sun at noon near Kodak's offices
6000K Bright sunshine with clear sky
7000K Slightly overcast sky
8000K Hazy sky
9000K Open shade on clear day
10,000K Heavily overcast sky
11,000K Sunless blue skies
20,000+K Open shade in mountains on a really clear day

Worrying about a slight adjustment using a controlled flash is nothing like the crazy variations that nature provides. Note this is some old data and a daylight balanced electronic flash should be 5500 or 5600K, I find it more interesting historically than as important data.

SNP · « **Reply #27 on:** September 16, 2011, 00:41 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on September 15, 2011, 22:43

Quote from: gostwyck on September 15, 2011, 20:31
Quote from: SNP on September 15, 2011, 19:55
respect your right to do any workflow you please, and obviously it works for you...but I don't know why anyone would shoot jpeg when you can shoot raw. I just wouldn't. the only time I might do this is if shooting editorial that is being fed directly to media (and I nail in-camera in these scenarios)....or if I'm traveling and shooting personal images that will never be processed as 'work'. I'm quite surprised when you say that you shoot in jpeg. you've said it a few times here.

Because I've tried shooting in RAW ... and couldn't find any significant advantage ... but lots of disadvantages. The objective is to get it right in-camera as opposed to doing it wrong and then fannying about in RAW for hours of post-processing trying to correct all the mistakes you made during the shoot. If I did all that nonsense then I wouldn't be able to spend as much time as I do on the golf course ... and that would be a very bad thing. Why not just shoot it right first time? Much easier IMHO.

One more vote for the I shoot JPG hat. For myself I have some other reasons, usually deadlines and speed, but even so, sometimes I feel like people are flogging themselves into being true believers by shooting RAW. The size, the conversion, the time, and in most cases a waste because you can get the same results using JPG imaging.

BTW if I want to make darkroom changes and modifications, I open the JPG and save it as a TIF. Edit the TIF and save it as a JPG. Done...

Back to the original question, yes, or no, or whatever. I shoot with strobes and daylight color balanced twist tubes nVision brand because of their color. Auto. It's not a huge problem, and minor corrections are just as easy as if I went the whole RAW route. I find more trouble shooting outdoors in natural light, with clouds, time of day and all kinds of variation is natural Sunlight.

The often quoted and repeated Kodak Color Temperature guidelines

Temperature Typical Sources

1000K Candles; oil lamps
2000K Very early sunrise; low effect tungsten lamps
2500K Household light bulbs
3000K Studio lights, photo floods
4000K Clear flashbulbs
5000K Typical daylight; electronic flash
5500K The sun at noon near Kodak's offices
6000K Bright sunshine with clear sky
7000K Slightly overcast sky
8000K Hazy sky
9000K Open shade on clear day
10,000K Heavily overcast sky
11,000K Sunless blue skies
20,000+K Open shade in mountains on a really clear day

Worrying about a slight adjustment using a controlled flash is nothing like the crazy variations that nature provides. Note this is some old data and a daylight balanced electronic flash should be 5500 or 5600K, I find it more interesting historically than as important data.

why would you save it to TIFF after it's already been compressed in camera....it won't rectify any existing compression issues. as for editorial, yeah sure, sometimes I have to shoot in jpeg to hand off to runners on the spot. but that's a different thing altogether from stock

lagereek · « **Reply #28 on:** September 16, 2011, 01:39 »

Hi Stacey!

Ofcourse you dont go and spend tens of thousands on equipment to go shooting jpgs, thats normally a cop-out for not being handy with post-processing, PS, etc. You shoot in raw. Most studio photographers I know dont bother, they set the WB to daylight, remember, flash-light is supposed to immitate daylight, and then they tweak the WB in the raw-converter.
Alternative is to get a color-meter, combined with flash, rather an expensive piece of equipment and it really wont give that extra.

Rinderart is correct though, the age of bulbs can sometines play tricks but with fairly modern flash you should be OK.

best.

lthn · « **Reply #29 on:** September 16, 2011, 01:49 »

ohh jesus... just set what looks good. done.

agreed with SNP here, most ppl who stick to these 'scientific' ways of setting wb often produce the worst looking stuff, it doesnt work. they don'l realize that for example if you have a face on a vibrant background -especially if its a single color- the face need a lots more warmth and saturation to to look ok. they just stick to their gray cards, and the person will look like a dead body from the morgue freezer, as you see in so many ports on SS f.e.

shooting into jpgs nowadays is nonsense. they don't even load faster than raws, and the storage space difference isn't really an issue in 2011 anymore.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #30 on:** September 16, 2011, 02:18 »

The Canon RAW converter has a built in option for correcting chromatic aberration on Canon lenses. I suspect it has a separate algorithm for each lens so that it knows what colour aberrations there will be at any given focal length and just shifts the pixels in each channel to cancel that.

However it does it, it works brilliantly and eliminates forever those irritating "colour fringing" rejections. That, alone, is good enough reason for me to stick to shooting RAW+jpg, since no photographer - however good - can "nail" CA in the camera.

CA correction is not an option for jpgs in Canon's software (at least, not in the converter supplied with my camera).

Is there a CA eliminating program for jpgs? I haven't come across one (but I would like to know if there is), but even if it exists it can't be easier or more accurate than Canon's own.

It seems silly to me to say that you shoot RAW for clients but not for 38c microstock. My best-selling stock files have earned me more than my day-rate. For that reason I will put the same amount of effort into any file that is being sold. A rejection for a blown highlight that could have been recovered in RAW or for fringing could cost me more than $1,000 in lost sales .... OK, it probably won't because not many of my files make that, but isn't that what we are hoping for from every upload?

That's my take on it.

lthn · « **Reply #31 on:** September 16, 2011, 02:31 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 16, 2011, 02:18

The Canon RAW converter has a built in option for correcting chromatic aberration on Canon lenses. I suspect it has a separate algorithm for each lens so that it knows what colour aberrations there will be at any given focal length and just shifts the pixels in each channel to cancel that.

However it does it, it works brilliantly and eliminates forever those irritating "colour fringing" rejections. That, alone, is good enough reason for me to stick to shooting RAW+jpg, since no photographer - however good - can "nail" CA in the camera.

CA correction is not an option for jpgs in Canon's software (at least, not in the converter supplied with my camera).

Is there a CA eliminating program for jpgs? I haven't come across one (but I would like to know if there is), but even if it exists it can't be easier or more accurate than Canon's own.

It seems silly to me to say that you shoot RAW for clients but not for 38c microstock. My best-selling stock files have earned me more than my day-rate. For that reason I will put the same amount of effort into any file that is being sold. A rejection for a blown highlight that could have been recovered in RAW or for fringing could cost me more than $1,000 in lost sales .... OK, it probably won't because not many of my files make that, but isn't that what we are hoping for from every upload?

That's my take on it.

You can open jgps in adobe camera raw and that has CA controll

Xalanx · « **Reply #32 on:** September 16, 2011, 02:41 »

Absolutely, there is certainly more than just getting the exposure and white balance right in camera. Those are fairly easy to master even by newbies, but there are also things like CA, vignetting, distortion, things that are easily solved by lens profiles in Lightroom. And of course other benefits as well. For example the quality of out-of-camera jpeg is very much lower than raw converted to jpeg from Lightroom (or CaptureOne for that matter). Speaking dynamic range, sharpness, noise reduction.

RT · « **Reply #33 on:** September 16, 2011, 03:56 »

Quote from: ruigsantos on September 15, 2011, 05:56

When I'm shooting indoors with studio strobes I shoot in raw and use a grey card to set the white balance later. Every time I change the power of the strobe or the distance from the strobe to the model, I take one shot with the model holding the card. My question is: is this necessary or I just need to take *one* image with the model and the grey card in the beginning of the shoot? The color temperature of the strobe is the same no matter it's power settings or distance to the subject or am I wrong here?

Do it once, if you're shooting in a studio you don't need to keep changing the WB or use grey cards, grey cards are useful for WB if you're shooting on location if colour accuracy is critical, it sets a neutral target taking ambient light into consideration, in a studio you don't have any ambient light. If you start * about with gels you'll probably want a reference shot.

In the days of film grey cards were used to set exposure values, they still have a relevant use in digital but most people probably don't do it correctly, in all honesty IMO being able to read a histogram is more of an advantage than a grey card.

As for RAW - Well it's a personal thing and I know some may want to shoot in Jpeg for stock to speed the process up, personally speaking I shoot at the best quality available and that is RAW, it has nothing to do with "nailing it first time" ( I always laugh when I see some people make that statement and then look at their portfolio and see hundreds of horrendous photoshopped images) as someone said above you can nail it first time in RAW just as you can in Jpeg.

Why spend thousands on camera equipment and then shoot at the lowest quality you can, doesn't make sense. Of course the other reason is that some people don't understand how it all works, same goes for using gray cards and WB.

Add to the fact that shooting in RAW and keeping a copy of that RAW file is the only legal proof you've got that you took the photo and it's a no brainer.

RT · « **Reply #34 on:** September 16, 2011, 04:10 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 16, 2011, 02:18

It seems silly to me to say that you shoot RAW for clients but not for 38c microstock. My best-selling stock files have earned me more than my day-rate.

You've hit the nail on the head first time! I'm guessing you don't have to resort to "teaching" the naive and gullible.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #35 on:** September 16, 2011, 04:11 »

Quote from: RT on September 16, 2011, 03:56

Add to the fact that shooting in RAW and keeping a copy of that RAW file is the only legal proof you've got that you took the photo and it's a no brainer.

That's an incredibly important point. A few years ago one of the leading names on SS got suspended because a restaurant using his photo claimed they owned it an he had stolen it. The whole thing was absurd but he had to go to great lengths to get reinstated. There may be other ways to prove ownership - e.g. having other photos in the same series - but having the RAW file is a clincher. Losing a whole portfolio for want of one RAW file would be horrific.

rubyroo · « **Reply #36 on:** September 16, 2011, 04:27 »

That's a great point - and it just reminded me to back up my RAW files.

I also do my best to nail an image in camera. For me it's just a case of keeping as many options as possible open on every image I shoot. I don't do much post-production on my images - just a tweak or two, but I don't know what the future might bring to the table, and I might want to do something further down the road that isn't possible now. So... maximum editability is something I like to preserve.

cathyslife · « **Reply #37 on:** September 16, 2011, 06:26 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 15, 2011, 14:07

Quote from: rinderart on September 15, 2011, 13:13
This is penny stock Guys, The more you twiddle, The less you make. I shoot Raw for clients and Jpg for stock. Why? because I nail it first time. levels adj and Im done. For a possible 38 cents cost effectively it makes no sense not to.

Exactly. I've never understood why so many photographers always try to make things as hard as possible for themselves. It is completely unnecessary __ but I'm kind of glad that they do so.

I'm not learning all this to apply to microstock...there are plenty of other things to do with photography. I totally agree with you about shooting for microstock tho. The least amount of time to get the photos accepted, period.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #38 on:** September 16, 2011, 06:57 »

If you only plan on making $.25 from SS one time, by all means, spend as little time possible. I like to make a little more from my efforts.

Ed · « **Reply #39 on:** September 16, 2011, 08:36 »

Quote from: rinderart on September 15, 2011, 13:13

I specialize in studio Lighting and teach it and have long before this business was even thought of being a working Product/portrait photographer since the middle 60's. I used grey cards for exposure for many years. I use auto WB now. The difference between 5600 and 5700 is Very < very small. Im a pure Manual shooter except for unless Im trying something different. A complete understanding of WB is critical in Digital. As is the Complete understanding Of the principals of DOF and how it relates to distance from Subject and focal length Used. It is the foundation Of Photography. In the film days we had 2 choices, Now we have Hundreds. Digital is great but unfortunately it has spawned a whole lot of Lazy Photographers thinking there gonna fix it Later. This is penny stock Guys, The more you twiddle, The less you make. I shoot Raw for clients and Jpg for stock. Why? because I nail it first time. levels adj and Im done. For a possible 38 cents cost effectively it makes no sense not to. IMHO. Glad to see a Photo thread instead of another IS thread. LOL

Laurin, since I started doing this in 2005, one thing I learned very quickly from you and Bobby is to pay attention...and I still do.

I call bull. You don't nail it the first time. If you did, then why is it that the images you are submitting from your paintings are scanned with a Canon CanoScan LiDE 100. These are slide scans. Here's an example....

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-willard-image21041276#

...and why is this image at 7.7 mp, shot with a Nikon D3 which produces images at 12.1 mp? If you get it right the first time, then why the reduction in size? In fact, that's just one example from your portfolio...there are multiple.

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-beautiful-woman-image20979957

Here's another from a D3 thats 5.5mp

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-dunes-image20037491

Bud, I don't mean to call you out but like I said, you and Bobby taught me years ago to pay attention - want to learn lighting, then check the catch lights in the eyes. Want to learn photograhy or postprocessing techniques, then find an agency that shows EXIF information and study it. You may not do much in post, but you certainly don't nail it the first time. Nobody does.

SNP · « **Reply #40 on:** September 16, 2011, 10:09 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 16, 2011, 04:11

Quote from: RT on September 16, 2011, 03:56
Add to the fact that shooting in RAW and keeping a copy of that RAW file is the only legal proof you've got that you took the photo and it's a no brainer.

That's an incredibly important point. A few years ago one of the leading names on SS got suspended because a restaurant using his photo claimed they owned it an he had stolen it. The whole thing was absurd but he had to go to great lengths to get reinstated. There may be other ways to prove ownership - e.g. having other photos in the same series - but having the RAW file is a clincher. Losing a whole portfolio for want of one RAW file would be horrific.

+1 & +1...exactly. keeping raw files is the only proof you've shot the file. not to mention all the other reasons for shooting raw. speaking of lens correction, I love the lens/camera-specific correction in CS5 too. does a great job most of the time.

SNP · « **Reply #41 on:** September 16, 2011, 10:10 »

Quote from: cclapper on September 16, 2011, 06:26

Quote from: gostwyck on September 15, 2011, 14:07
Quote from: rinderart on September 15, 2011, 13:13
This is penny stock Guys, The more you twiddle, The less you make. I shoot Raw for clients and Jpg for stock. Why? because I nail it first time. levels adj and Im done. For a possible 38 cents cost effectively it makes no sense not to.

Exactly. I've never understood why so many photographers always try to make things as hard as possible for themselves. It is completely unnecessary __ but I'm kind of glad that they do so.

I'm not learning all this to apply to microstock...there are plenty of other things to do with photography. I totally agree with you about shooting for microstock tho. The least amount of time to get the photos accepted, period.

great approach to doing good work

personally I try to do my best on everything I shoot.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #42 on:** September 16, 2011, 11:37 »

Quote from: SNP on September 16, 2011, 10:10

Quote from: cclapper on September 16, 2011, 06:26
Quote from: gostwyck on September 15, 2011, 14:07
Quote from: rinderart on September 15, 2011, 13:13
This is penny stock Guys, The more you twiddle, The less you make. I shoot Raw for clients and Jpg for stock. Why? because I nail it first time. levels adj and Im done. For a possible 38 cents cost effectively it makes no sense not to.

Exactly. I've never understood why so many photographers always try to make things as hard as possible for themselves. It is completely unnecessary __ but I'm kind of glad that they do so.

I'm not learning all this to apply to microstock...there are plenty of other things to do with photography. I totally agree with you about shooting for microstock tho. The least amount of time to get the photos accepted, period.

great approach to doing good work personally I try to do my best on everything I shoot.

make it 2, even if it is for 7 cents at IS! I am a proud poor contributor! (I am serious, not joking here)

SNP · « **Reply #43 on:** September 16, 2011, 11:39 »

my comment was a little snarky, but really. I can't imagine bragging about intentionally doing less than my best on any of my work. I'd like to think that in the big picture, taking a 'best always' approach is what gets you places.

cathyslife · « **Reply #44 on:** September 16, 2011, 11:58 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on September 16, 2011, 11:37

Quote from: SNP on September 16, 2011, 10:10
Quote from: cclapper on September 16, 2011, 06:26
Quote from: gostwyck on September 15, 2011, 14:07
Quote from: rinderart on September 15, 2011, 13:13
This is penny stock Guys, The more you twiddle, The less you make. I shoot Raw for clients and Jpg for stock. Why? because I nail it first time. levels adj and Im done. For a possible 38 cents cost effectively it makes no sense not to.

Exactly. I've never understood why so many photographers always try to make things as hard as possible for themselves. It is completely unnecessary __ but I'm kind of glad that they do so.

I'm not learning all this to apply to microstock...there are plenty of other things to do with photography. I totally agree with you about shooting for microstock tho. The least amount of time to get the photos accepted, period.

great approach to doing good work personally I try to do my best on everything I shoot.

make it 2, even if it is for 7 cents at IS! I am a proud poor contributor! (I am serious, not joking here)

I'm pretty sure you two understood the real meaning. There are plenty of people who submit photos taken on a whim (meaning not a lot of setup time) that become best sellers somewhere, even on microstock.

If you'll notice, my statement (and others) said LEAST AMOUNT OF TIME...it doesn't say anything at all about quality.

SNP · « **Reply #45 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:12 »

sorry, but I think time spent on the process is a part of overall quality. not always, but I think you would find that most established, successful contributors spend a lot fo time setting up their shoots and processing. it doesn't help our industry at all when contributors brag that they work less hard on shots for little ol' microstock. I take my work for microstock as seriously as I take assignment work. it's work, it pays and it's important to me to deliver the best possible product to the client.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #46 on:** September 16, 2011, 13:45 »

Quote from: SNP on September 16, 2011, 12:12

sorry, but I think time spent on the process is a part of overall quality. not always, but I think you would find that most established, successful contributors spend a lot fo time setting up their shoots and processing. it doesn't help our industry at all when contributors brag that they work less hard on shots for little ol' microstock. I take my work for microstock as seriously as I take assignment work. it's work, it pays and it's important to me to deliver the best possible product to the client.

the brag here is: I dont need the RAW, I do it on camera, it is the same stuff about RM earnings from our dearest top notch rig photographer!

SNP · « **Reply #47 on:** September 16, 2011, 14:01 »

I guess I'm naive enough to think that good work speaks for itself. proof is in the pudding etc. I'm not saying good work can't be done in jpeg, but I'm pretty surprised at the number of professional (and semi-pro) stock shooters that admit to shooting jpeg and who make the argument that it's somehow better than those of us who shoot in raw. again, editorial is a whole other type of shooting but as much as possible I shoot that in raw too.

cathyslife · « **Reply #48 on:** September 16, 2011, 14:12 »

Anways, to get the topic back on track and off the typical pissing contest, I shoot better than you, you aren't professional unless you're me...

Used the 5600K setting on my camera today for a couple of shots, and it worked a charm. Thanks for the tip!

SNP · « **Reply #49 on:** September 16, 2011, 14:55 »

Quote from: cclapper on September 16, 2011, 14:12

Anways, to get the topic back on track and off the typical pissing contest, I shoot better than you, you aren't professional unless you're me...

Used the 5600K setting on my camera today for a couple of shots, and it worked a charm. Thanks for the tip!

it's not a pissing contest at all Cathy. questions are fair as a reaction to workflow posts, aren't they? I don't think it was far off topic at all since we're discussing white balance and shooting in camera/post-processing.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: White balance and studio strobes (Read 29514 times)

SNP

RacePhoto

SNP

lagereek

lthn

BaldricksTrousers

lthn

Xalanx

RT

RT

BaldricksTrousers

rubyroo

cathyslife

Sean Locke Photography

Ed

SNP

SNP

luissantos84

SNP

cathyslife

SNP

luissantos84

SNP

cathyslife

SNP

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors