C J Campbell wrote:
> Not necessarily. The trouble with post camera WB editing is that you
> cannot bring back the part of the spectrum that the camera did not
> record, especially if you are shooting JPG images. Try shooting a JPG
> with flash using tungsten balance, for example, and then try
> correcting it back in Photoshop. You will never get the same image as
> you would have done if you had shot it correctly in the first place.
That's correct. How's the Auto WB on the D300? I find it to be pretty
decent on the D3.
> I will use an Expo/Disc to set custom white balance, but this is not
> always practical. It is time consuming and a wild animal might not be
> willing to sit there long enough for you to shoot a gray card or white
> card or Expo/Disc. Besides, shooting a white card or gray card or
> otherwise measuring white balance is not always accurate with a
> polarizer.
I know you are not going to tell me you got suckered into buying an
ExpoDisc? A piece of white translucent florescent diffuser grid works
extremely well and is just as accurate.
> I find that animals are singularly uninterested in the quality of
> their photographs. You would think they would take more pride in how
> they present themselves to the public, but they don't. Shocking,
> really. (And you never, EVER, follow a bear over a hill.)
>
> I would suggest comparing images shot with a Moose Filter with images
> shot with an ordinary polarizer and then run through the 81A filter in
> Photoshop. There is quite a bit of difference. The difference is not
> always attractive. As I said before, the Moose filter can leave you
> with a turquoise sky. But used properly and in its place, it is a
> useful tool.
Not sure on the D300, but the D3 lets you tweak the WB to do this in
camera.
Rita
|
