Should we split the event-shooting specific stuff to a new topic? (Also, not sure but you might be able to change topic titles as a mod).
Hmm, you are right, I was able to change the forum thread title.
Most of the thread pertains to event shooting: setting up the camera, including whether to use AWB or to make white balance shots as lighting conditions change, equipment to use, etc.
The rest of the thread pertains to processing raw files at the command line. Would it be possible to split the “processing raw files at the command line” portions off to a separate thread, and maybe even move the “event shooting” portion over to the Capture category?
I would consider carefully if a topic title needs to be changed (hint: rarely).
Instead, we can split topics that have veered OT into new threads of their own (or move certain posts to other existing threads). You should be able to do this also.
Hmm, well, guidance is very welcome on what to do! The original question was about my floating point dcraw, but my floating point dcraw was immediately left behind as not relevant to solving the practical problems at hand. Then the thread pretty much clearly split into two parts:
-
processing raw files from the command line - not really yet covered in the thread, so maybe start a new thread and move the relevants portions of the existing thread? You say I should be able to do this, but I don’t know how (and I’m a bit afraid of doing something altogether wrong).
-
advice for shooting events, including advice for when the goal is to shoot raw files (the major portion of the current thread)
FWIW, I don’t anticipate wanting to change topic titles very often, maybe not even ever again. My reason for changing the topic title for this particular thread is because the original title didn’t seem likely to attract the attention of people with practical advice to offer on event shooting. If I erred, my apologies to you and also to @afre .
Sorry, I don’t have much online experience so I don’t know proper forum etiquette. IRL I tend to have the habit of addressing multiple threads of thought at once, which makes it very confusing for the listener. Also, I am not certain of what the tipping point is for creating a new thread or changing the title. I wouldn’t want to change things all of the time or have dozens of threads. That would be obnoxious.
I guess I often just need a gentle reminder like “@afre, please split the topic”, and I will create a new one that links to the current one. Anyway, thanks for being so considerate about it.
Don’t worry about it @afre, only an admin can split a topic. We try to keep one topic per thread, but meandering is permitted. If someone feels the topic has meandered far enough, they’ll split the topic. No big deal, we just try to keep everyone on the same page.
1 Like
@afre - I have the same habits as you, addressing multiple threads at once. So if it’s OK with you and @patdavid , let’s keep everything in this one thread, renamed as it is (and again my apologies if I shouldn’t have renamed it).[quote=“afre, post:5, topic:3436”]
I realize that I probably cannot or should not aim for an 1:1 interpretation to due artistic and technical reasons, but I do hope that I can improve upon the captured image to bring it closer to the ground truth than what the in-camera JEPG or default post-processor settings would yield. At the moment, I don’t have the skills to take advantage of RAW but at least I want to learn how to interpolate the image and set up the environment so that my options as open as possible.
[/quote]
Could you explain a bit what it is about the in-camera-created jpeg and the usual default post-processor settings that you aren’t happy with? I also don’t like camera jpegs and the results of the usal post-processor settings in the various raw processors. So my temptation is to explain how to get scene-referred output that you can then modify to suit. But it would be better to first have a more clear idea of what you don’t like about “the usual way” and what you want to accomplish instead.
1 Like
You didn’t err, of course. I was just suggesting a light touch, but I trust everyone on the staff and their decisions. 
(We haven’t found anyone completely nuts yet - except maybe @houz). If you need a hand with splitting topics or anything just let me know and I’ll do whatever I can to help!
@afre you’re doing great, don’t worry! 
I still have some preprocessing items to explore.
More Background
I shoot with the optical viewfinder in RAW and manual mode. I use autofocus and spot metering, though coordinating the two can be awkward (manual focus might help). I find that there is almost always more dynamic range than my camera can handle, leading to the improper exposure of certain parts of the resultant image and in turn undermining the detail and color (flash might help but mine is broken).
More Questions
-
Does WB affect the metering in the viewfinder?
-
The foam cup method doesn’t require placement but WB targets do. In an uncontrolled environment, where there is movement and mixed lighting, how do I make good use of them?
-
Teflon is mentioned in one of your articles. Is there a reason that you use PVC instead?
Shooting Approach
A 35mm would be nice. Indoors, I often find myself contorted against the wall. Same with group photos, I have to stand uncomfortably far, where details begin to lose resolution. I also have trouble “being there” as I am stuck between finding a shutter speed that compensates for my unsteady hands and not getting enough light for a proper exposure. I would increase the ISO but my camera is on the noisy side.
WB doesn’t affect metering in the viewfinder of an SLR. It probably does in a mirrorless, depending on what colors make up the scene.
Using a foam cup to set white balance isn’t strongly affected by where you point the camera, but it is sensitive to where the camera is. Ideally you set the WB from near where the subject is. In an uncontrolled situation, just change stuff in post until it looks good.
Why not use shutter-priority mode when you’re in a situation that requires a minimum shutter speed, such as a group even or party? That way you can at least take a photo without a lot of motion blur. I’d also say that raising your ISO is much preferable to missing the exposure. You just need to explore some noise reduction techniques.
Got a monopod? I find it makes a difference in what shutter speed I can get away with versus pure hand-held.
I think in your shooting situation the styrofoam cup or similar diffuser over the lens is the better option:
Also videographers sometimes use the diffuser approach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak3wRrv1ZbI
When white balancing to take a close-up of a single person, if the person will cooperate, put them in the most full-spectrum lighting available and then have them hold a WB target close to their face. Likewise if you are moving in close to photograph some stationary object, you can make two shots, one with and one without the PVC or other white balance target in the predominant light source illuminating the object to be photographed. But otherwise, I don’t see any practical way to use a target in an “event” type mixed lighting situation.
Regarding the teflon, that’s in my article about making a target shot for making a custom camera input profile. I included the option to use teflon to white balance the target shot based on posts made to the ArgyllCMS mailing list, but since then the list member who suggested using teflon decided it wasn’t such a good idea. My own effort to use the teflon tape also didn’t really work. I need to revise that article and remove the reference to the teflon tape. It’s not the easiest stuff to even get flat when attached to a back support.
I’d say that it might help to have a wb target shot in the various lighting situations you may encounter. What I mean is, usually an event will have a limited set of possible lights (assuming white lights mostly), tungsten, fluorescent, incandescence, in a few different temps. You can shoot a target under the main light sources in your area/event so you can use them as a baseline later on when processing.
It’ll also give you a range of values through which to adjust and mix things to compensate for the mixed scenario the subject may be in. Remember, the diffuser over the lens will only give you a WB for the light hitting the lens, and may not reflect what your subject is seeing cast on them.
Unfortunately, mixed lights are a real pain to balance and still have look natural - especially if they’re way different temps. I ran into this all the damn time shooting real estate. It finally made sense to start buying daylight balanced bulbs and replacing them in the fixtures if I wanted to have them on for shots.
If you’re lucky, you may be able to create two version of your image balanced for each of the discrete lights, and blend them afterwards in GIMP?
1 Like
This advice is something I gleaned from watching a youtube video make by thefrugalfilmmaker (https://www.youtube.com/user/thefrugalfilmmaker - I was actually looking for information on making a stand to hold some lights, and I don’t remember which video I was watching). I don’t make videos, but the frugalfilmmaker website (http://filmflap.blogspot.com/) and youtube channel have a lot of useful shooting tops and also ideas for diy equipment, that apply just as well to still shots as to videos.
The diyphotography.net site also has a lot of useful ideas for figuring out how to make the most of your camera with the least amount of monetary input. For me photography is a hobby for which there is a limited budget, and so I think carefully about cost vs benefit of any given bit of equipment (diy or otherwise) that might, or might not, solve any given problem.
A monopod held firmly and obviously in one hand as you walk about might even help clear a path past the trigger happy smart phone users. I don’t mean brandishing it like a weapon or anything, just that sometimes have a larger silhouette helps people realize that you are actually there.
2 Likes
The whole concept of UniWB was developed in the context of DSLRs, to allow the option to expose as far to the right as possible without clipping the highlights (GUILLERMO LUIJK >> TUTORIALS >> UNIWB. MAKE CAMERA DISPLAY RELIABLE).
So yes, if the goal is to expose to the right, based on things like the histogram that the camera shows, or the “zebras” that indicate blown highlights, then as far as I know even in today’s DSLRs the histogram and the zebras are always based on the jpeg that the camera would be saving, if you had asked the camera to save a jpeg. And the blown highlight indicators will vary depending on the picture style and also on the in-camera white balance settings.
Metering for middle gray is conceptually different from using the histogram or “zebras” to determine when the highlights of an image start to clip. And personally I’ve only ever owned and used one DSLR. And maybe I’ve completely misunderstood the question. But on my DSLR (the 2006-released Canon 400D) the metering was very much affected by the white balance.
According to this forum post: Sony zebras are soooo conservative (A7 II) the “zebra” warnings on the mirrorless Sony A7ii are less sensitive to the white balance than are DSLRs.
I have a Sony A7 mirrorless camera (the original A7), and so I just did a quick experiment, setting up a scene with an approx. 4800K LED light source on one side and an incandescent light source on the other side, and photographed the Live View with a point and shoot, setting the white balance to several of the default settings (and keeping the picture style constant). Here’s the result:
I don’t have a modern DSLR to compare to the Sony A7. And I’m too lazy to dig out the Canon 400D and take similar photographs.
UniWB doesn’t affect the meter in the optical viewfinder, though. At least on my cameras.
What it affects is the white balance multipliers to make the JPEG histogram useful for evaluating clipping in-camera.
You know, you are probably right. I think I’ll pull out the Canon 400D and check. I never used the meter because the meter never gave me useable information as my main concern was not blowing out the highlights in a scene.
I just checked with my 5D, the white balance doesn’t affect metering anywhere. I tested the range from cloudy to tungsten WB.
Interestingly, I always use the meter (center-weighted-average) and I just dial in exposure compensation based on my experience, and I get much more consistent results (with regards to not clipping accidentally) than on my live-view only GR. I know approximately what offset to use for any given subject, just by looking at the scene.
2 Likes