RAW - vs - red filter & white balance

[northerner]

auto-wb means the camera is making adjustments,
by doing a wb-cal, i get quicker individual shots! +wb im happy with.
i found my cals, were more accurate too.
i've missed too many shots due to digi lag with auto wb

Oh ok - I use an SLR and that's not a problem, if it slows up your shots (what camera out of interest?) then I can understand getting the WB right in the water.

Cheers,

Graham

[String]

i just set WB to cloudy and shoot raw on my compact, Its quicker than auto WB

[witchieblackcat]

I don't really see the point of supposedly 'getting it right in camera', and then tweaking later. Surely that means that it's NOT right in the camera and you are making work for yourself!

I shoot RAW with auto white balance and CS3 - that means you can concentrate on taking shots rather than messing with too may settings.

Regarding the red filter - if you are using RAW I see no benefit at all and as others have said it will just cut light out.

Cheers,

Graham

I'm supposed to be a photographer not a graphic artist. I like to have most of the work done before I download the pictures rather than having to convert everything for white balance using CS3 or whatever. The pertinent point was "if necessary".

I'm no real expert but according to Martin Edge's book that's the way to go.

[infernalzen]

oly 5050.
had it for years now +still loving its macro focus

[ChristianG]

I'm supposed to be a photographer not a graphic artist. I like to have most of the work done before I download the pictures rather than having to convert everything for white balance using CS3 or whatever. The pertinent point was "if necessary".

I'm no real expert but according to Martin Edge's book that's the way to go.

Errrrmmmmm.

There are a couple of replies to this:

1) Use film technology. But how are you going to get it into print? Oh, by scanning it? Isn't that exactly the same as a digital camera without the in-between step? In the old pre-digital printing days that was called "colour separation" and it cost a motza. Notice that today everyone prints colour?

As an aside I recently purchased an Epson (as it happens) scanner for $Au385 IIRC. If I'd bought a scanner with those capabilities around 1995 (in fact, I did) it would have cost me some $Au60-70K - in the values of those times, say, conservatively, a lot more than $Au100K today. Moreover I would have had to place it in its own sterile, overpressured, room and it was about the size of a desk. This thing sits ON my desk!

2) Are you telling me that Mr Edge doesn't use PhotoShop? Sorry, CS3?

Actually the average diver/photographer should use PhotoShop Elements which is much cheaper and mostly more than they'll EVER need. The advantage is that if they want to upgrade to PS proper it's simply a matter of learning the extra bells and whistles rather than relearning a whole new programme.

Although I agree that digital has many pros it also has its cons but, thankfully, it's a lot easier nowadays to fix those cons than in the days of analogue photography. What, you think that the darkroom boys didn't have their tricks? Just think about pushing or pulling film if stupid here had forgotten to properly select the ISO on the camera - as just one very simple example of darkroom wizardry.

Sure, by all means shoot the best pic you're capable of (and bracket, bracket, bracket) - but rejoice in the fact that there's more than one way to skin a cat.

I'm a (retired) graphics pro, I'm also a very conservative guy and like many I first objected to this digital world. No more.

[ChristianG]

I'm supposed to be a photographer not a graphic artist. I like to have most of the work done before I download the pictures rather than having to convert everything for white balance using CS3 or whatever. The pertinent point was "if necessary".

I'm no real expert but according to Martin Edge's book that's the way to go.

Errrrmmmmm.

There are a couple of replies to this:

1) Use film technology. But how are you going to get it into print? Oh, by scanning it? Isn't that exactly the same as a digital camera without the in-between step? In the old pre-digital printing days that was called "colour separation" and it cost a motza. Notice that today everyone prints colour?

As an aside I recently purchased an Epson (as it happens) scanner for $Au385 IIRC. If I'd bought a scanner with those capabilities around 1995 (in fact, I did) it would have cost me some $Au60-70K - in the values of those times, say, conservatively, a lot more than $Au100K today. Moreover I would have had to place it in its own sterile, overpressured, room and it was about the size of a desk. This thing sits ON my desk!

2) Are you telling me that Mr Edge doesn't use PhotoShop? Sorry, CS3?

Actually the average diver/photographer should use PhotoShop Elements which is much cheaper and mostly more than they'll EVER need. The advantage is that if they want to upgrade to PS proper it's simply a matter of learning the extra bells and whistles rather than relearning a whole new programme.

Although I agree that digital has many pros it also has its cons but, thankfully, it's a lot easier nowadays to fix those cons than in the days of analogue photography. What, you think that the darkroom boys didn't have their tricks? Just think about pushing or pulling film if stupid here had forgotten to properly select the ISO on the camera - as just one very simple example of darkroom wizardry.

Sure, by all means shoot the best pic you're capable of (and bracket, bracket, bracket) - but rejoice in the fact that there's more than one way to skin a cat.

I'm a (retired) graphics pro, I'm also a very conservative guy and like many I first objected to this digital world. No more.

[witchieblackcat]

The point I am trying to make is that if I get as much right before I press the button I have to do less with the computer. I'm supposed to be enjoying the picture taking and not sitting in front of a computer.

Clearly Mr Edge does use Photoshop in fact he goes on about all throughout his book though it might not be CS3 because his book hasn't discovered the Nikon SLRs yet. We all do a little tweaking of photos - I use Photoshop a bit, lightroom and Nikon's Capture NX as well as a dabble with Picasa occasionally, it all depends on the camera and situation. Tweaking I can live with but if it's much more then I might as well start with an easel and some paints rather than a camera.

I am not dismissing digital photography at all. You however seem to be suggesting that because it's digital we can just fix it so why bother getting as near to perfect as possible in the water. Maybe it's just the way you're coming across.

[ChristianG]

You however seem to be suggesting that because it's digital we can just fix it so why bother getting as near to perfect as possible in the water. Maybe it's just the way you're coming across.

Maybe it is.

May I suggest you read, particularly, the second of my posts again. As well, my first suggestion of film has nowt wrong with it actually. There are still some great film cameras out there and, more importantly, great film.

[northerner]

I think generally 'photoshopping' an image (and by that I mean cropping, dodging, burning, contrast, levels, sharpening, saturation, colour control.....) is absolutely no different to what used to be done in the 'wet' darkroom. I had a darkroom and developed my own photos several years ago and even in my inexperience did all of the above during the developing process.

Of course this was not necessary - I could have dropped the film off at my local lab and got prints back within an hour if I'd wished. But I enjoyed the process of developing my own photos, getting the best out of them. There is no professional photographer in the world who would say that the development process, the 'manipulation' of an image, is not a critical part of the photographic process.

It all comes down to how much time you are willing to spend on your photos and how much you want to get out of them I guess. Getting it 'right' in camera as much as possible is essential - that goes without saying - but to label the 'development' process (in the 'wet' darkroom or in the 'digital' darkroom) as a band-aid for a badly taken photo is missing the point.

It does rub me up the wrong way somewhat (and this is not aimed at you witchieblackcat - just a general observation) when people look at 'photoshopping' as a modern way to 'cheat' at photography. It's just a modern version of the wet darkroom in my opinion - and a lot less messy!

Cheers,

Graham

[witchieblackcat]

I totally agree with you Northerner. Photoshop isn't cheating.

I too used film in my youth (and did a very small amout of darkroom stuff though all very simple). I did however use the High Street in preference being as I prefer the photography element with the camera rather that the darkroom. It does take all sorts.

Nowadays I do very minor tweaks to photos with software mainly being as I spend far too long in front of a computer every day anyway. Hence I believe in getting the picture as right in the camera as possible first.

Christian, I might have been being a little facetious with you earlier. I use white balance in the camera underwater so that I don’t need to bother on the computer (apart from the odd minor tweak) I suspect that if I used strobes than I’d have to rethink my theories but until I win the lottery I have to make do with the kit I have (Nikon D70s, Fantasea case, standard zoom or 50mm lens).