Just wondering something about white balance cards.
I was looking at a WhiBal card so I called my local photo place and asked if they carried them. Well the guy down there said a grey card is a grey card it doesn't matter, Hell you could use a white piece of paper if you felt like it. Well Just wondering is there anyhting special about it or is that true I can basically just use any old grey card? I picked one up from there for 5 bucks just wondering if I should splurge and get a whibal or stick with this.

 

Fuck it I'll just read the whibal thread...move on moooooove on

 

Is this another racist thread?

 

^


the guy at the local is correct more or less.

a grey card is supposed to be a perfect 18% grey = skin tones (white.)

the whibal is nifty little portable device.

 

Did you ever end up getting one? Should I get one or stick to my $5 grey card I cut into a smaller piece just now. Just wondering if it is worth it.

 

Me, no. But I have only just taken an interest in shooting RAW. So, I may at some point.

 

[ReddFoxxVoice] O'my God! It's the big one!!!! [/ReddFoxxVoice]

 

Yeah...

but I wont actually be doing it for awhile...I need to invest in a Sandisk Ultra card...and then update the firmware on the camera to use it...And even then I'm guessing to shoot RAW is SLLLLLOOOOOOOWWWWWW. I had snapping 3 shots and then having to wait 5 minutes for the camera to process it. Frankly, annoying as all hell.

I just need to make a shit ton more money and get a d200 yeah right

I am also waiting on Adobe Lightroom....though I am tempted to go with the new Aperture at such a cheap price using the education discount (they never check.) But I just havent heard anything good about it...So, the wait continues.

 

Sarlacc, why not use the lightroom Beta 2? it's a free download.

 

you could always go for an ExpoDisc...www.expodisc.com

They float on ebay for a few $$...I've used one, and gotten quite nice results (at CES), will probably pick one up someday...

I normally don't worry about the white balance as much as I should, in camera. It's too quick and easy to adjust later with pixmantec's RAW shooter essentials. (www.pixmantec.com...it's FREE!)

 

With your camera you can't take pictures while its loading? When I take raw it may take a few extra seconds but I can still take pictures while its loading them.

 

It's all relative to 2 things - the burst rate on your camera, and the speed of your flash card.

The Sandisk UltraII and ExtremeIII cards write the fastest, but can only go as fast as the camera can buffer and send off. The XT has a burst of 5 shots in RAW+L mode.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...e.asp?cid=6007

 

I can't understand the reasoning behind shooting RAW+L. That's just a waste of space. Windows can handle RAW files natively now, so there's really no benefit to even having a JPG attached. If you must have a JPG with your RAW, make it a small one and save the space.

 

Depends on the situation. I shoot RAW+L at work most of the time, because 9/10 I nail the shot anyways (product shots, controlled environment, external lighting, etc...), but just in case, I have the raw to fall back on. If I'm just shooting a family party, I'll go straight for L, sometimes just RAW.

But you're right, most of the time, it's a waste of space.

 

Even if you nail the shot, you're throwing away dynamic range and resolution by relying on JPEG.

 

I have been. I like it so far...but its still a beta...and there are certain features I am looking for...which will hopefully make it to production.

 

I don't think my camera gives me the option...if I shoot RAW, it captures a jepg too...I think i have the option when shooting Tif

 

Agreed. but on some "snapshots" it's just not worth worrying about.

 

Which camera do you have?

I don't think this is much of an issue anymore, since most cameras can write to the card in the background. When I use my slow as hell sandisk card, sometimes the write light is on constantly as the camera attempts to keep up. But I can't recall missing a shot due to the buffer being full, Even with my D60.

Of cousre, it's a non issue since I got a faster CF card. I keep one ultra II in case I feel like shooting like a crack smoking monkey, but I usually use my medium speed 2 Gig card.

BTW, sandisk ultra IIs are pretty cheap: 1 gig for $50 or so?
I still recall paying $150 for a 1 gig slowashell sandisk.

 

I use a D100 with a regular old slow sandisk 1gb card.

When the camera is writing to the card I can't shoot...not til the buffer is clear...takes forever when shooting high level tiffs...can only imagine with RAW. Really fucked me up when I was trying to make my panorama shot...had to switch to jpeg and start over.

I saw on the nikon website that there is a firmaware upgrade so I can use the ultra II cards...I will try that as soon as I get a little extra loot for a new card.

 

Anyone have a good easy to use program for shooting in RAW? This is what has prevented me from ultimately using it.


Also, anyone have a good program for monitor calibration?

 

http://www.pixmantec.com/products/ra...essentials.asp RSE is a free program and is very user friendly. Some like the results, some don't, but it's very easy to use. I've had good luck with it.

 

RSE is okay.
I have always used Adobe Camera Raw in photoshop CS. The one in CS2 is even nicer.

I haven't used the mac only lightroom beta, nor the adobe lightroom (currently also mac only).

As far as calibration goes, don't expect particularly good results from just a program. You need a camera thing that pairs with it.

 

When I was using Adobe raw everything looked cool till I saved them to Jpegs and all the awesomeness turned into drab chalky looking pictures to which I had to adjust again. Anyone know why this is?

I am using Adobe CS2 with updated raw.

 

Scott, if you're interested, I'm selling my Spyder 2 calibrator. I'll take pics of the kit tonight.

 

CS2 Camera Raw > *

I've tried pretty well every RAW conversion package on the market but nothing matches the workflow of CS2.

 

What software were you using to view the jpeg images? Do the jpegs still look OK when you view them within Photoshop? You have to remember that Photoshop is a color managed application and will actually take into account color profiles when displaying images. In other words, Photoshop displays the images "correctly." Other software that isn't color managed only takes an educated guess. Of course, all of this is meaningless if you don't have your monitor calibrated/profiled.

 

Nope they don't...I will see if I can do a screenshot. I view them both in CS2

 

This is a total pain in the ass.
As posted later, photoshop uses monitor profiles when showing pictures.
If you calibrate your monitor, and calibrate your printer, then you can be pretty much assured that your pictures on screen will look the same as they do when you print them.

However, given that very few monitors other people have are calibrated, you'll find that your pictures (and hell, EVERY picture in general) looks different on different people's monitors. It can drive you insane.

I have two monitors, and pictures look different when I switch monitors. It's enough to drive you mad. I haven't found an ideal solution that i'm generally happy with.

 

I think Dan Martin is selling his calibrator, if you're interested.

He used his to calibrate the monitors in my house, and let me tell you --- it made a huge difference! When it finished calibrating the monitor (initially), you could switch between the old settings and the revised ones, and wow!... the colours and contrast looked completely different. My monitor was way off before, which I knew, but I didn't realize how much better it would look when calibrated properly. It's amazing.

 

Thanks, but I have one.
Windows can't calibrate both monitors in a dual monitor setup,though. :/

 

Yes it can, but your calibrator and video card(s) have to support it.

 

ARGH, it's not working AGAIN.

Okay, how can I freakin' batch process RAW -> jpegs AND have the jpegs look the same as they do in the RAW files?

The end goal, of course, is to be able to have people view my pics in a web page and ahve a reasonably good chance that they look the same. My benchmark is usually to view with ACDSEE and that generally views the same as a web browser does.

Yes, I've calibrated my monitor.

I use photoshop CS2.

What I would like to do is:
1) Browse all pics in Adobe Bridge. Open them in camera raw as needed, fix white balance, etc.
2) In Bridge, use Tools -> Adobe -> Image processor to save all pics as jpeg.
3) upload to web site. Done.

When I do that, the photo looks like crap. ICC Profile saved I believe is sRGB.


If , in bridge, I do 'open' , I get a box that warns about Embedded profile mismatch.
If I select 'Convert to the working space' , then save to jpeg, itlooks just great,
probably because Color iis: ICC Profile: Samsung ICM Profile.

So the question is, how do I get ICC Profile to be saved as Samsung ICM Profile,
in batch, soI can post process a couple hundred pics without having to click through a couple of hundred dialog boxes?

 

If you're saving for the web, the correct profile is sRGB. The Samsung profile is the profile for your monitor, you should never convert your jpegs to that profile. The only place you use the Samsung profile is in the control panel -> display -> settings -> advanced -> color management.
If you are converting your images to the Samsung profile, then looking at the images through the Samsung profile, you're double converting the images.

Your workflow should be something like this:
1) Set your camera to the sRGB colour space in its menu.

2) Make sure your working space in Photoshop is set to sRGB as well (Edit -> Color Settings...). If it isn't, you'll get the color space mismatch warning.

3) If you're shooting RAW, make sure Adobe Camera RAW is set to sRGB as well.

4) Make sure you're not "soft-proofing" the image in Photoshop. If you hit CTRL+Y you'll toggle soft-proofing on and off. The title bar above the image will change from "(RGB/8#)" to "(RGB/8#/<profile name>)" if you're soft-proofing the image.

5) Adjust the image to your liking and save.


If you use sRGB for the entire workflow, the colors you see in photoshop will match what you see on the web.

Every time you change profiles, you're throwing a lot of color information away or at least mapping the colors differently. This can't be undone, so only change profiles from sRGB to another profile when you're printing. You'll want to use the Relative Colorimetric rendering intent for your conversions unless you know that you want to use another intent.

 

And if I can ride the coat tails of Chod's question, I have a couple of slightly related Bridge questions. I'm sure I could find the answers with sufficient digging but I only have PS7 at work and I'm feeling kind of lazy to search.

ACR in CS2 has the "auto" checkboxes that are enabled by default for exposure, shadows, brightness, and contrast. Every raw file I've opened so far in CS2 has looked like complete hell with these auto settings turned on.

IIRC, there was a way in the CS version of ACR to set default values for all the parameters. I did it once when I got CS and forgot about it. I have yet to get around to doing the same thing in CS2. Question one is, can you set a preference somewhere in CS2's ACR so that the auto checkboxes are not enabled?

I've noticed that the thumbnails in Bridge also appear to be using these auto settings for the tonal controls. This is really bugging the living sh!t out of me. I bracket almost everything I shoot and these stupid auto settings are making the thumbnails look almost identical to each other. Question two is, if I set the defaults in ACR to stop using these auto settings, does Bridge also stop using them for the thumbnails or is there a separate setting somewhere in Bridge?

 

I hear ya Billiam, I turned off the auto adjustments the first time I used it. Here's a how-to on Microsoft's site of all places: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u.../raw_tips.mspx

 

PSCS = $600, RSE = free. PSCS is great, but you gotta pay to play. My results with RSE have been good, and it's easy to use.

 

I have to admit, once you get into a particular workflow groove, it's hard to switch programs. I forgot RSE is free - certainly give that a try first. It it does what you need, then power to you!

 

Chod, was my explanation clear enough for the profile management? I know it's kind of a tricky concept to grasp, but if you're still having trouble, let me know.

 

Uh, I think so, but we'll find out when I get home

Thanks for the offer, I'll let you know.

- Frank