« on: January 30, 2015, 04:48:05 AM »
Thanks for the share. I'll surely buy this e-book.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Get yourself a Colorchecker from X-rite (my original reply), this will help you set up a color profile in horrible light and, wait for it... it has grey chips and white balance chips. You can do it all from there.
Look, lots of these so called pros here on this site are pros in their own mind... and would rather go on and on about this or that. They're easy to spot, they can't show any work for "privacy" issues and they're more interested in listing all of their precious gear. Take anything said as gospel with a grain of salt the size of Gibraltar. At the end of the day, it's you sitting in front of the computer looking at your own work. You choose what you like, you're the photographer. Work flow is important and if something can make your life easier (ie using a Colorchecker), do it and move on. All I know is when I have a few hundred photos to get to the client the next day, setting up a color profile gets you very close to what need. You will then have to make a judgment call and decide where you want the WB when dealing with mixed lighting... there is no simple one size fit all answer.
The first thing you have to realise, WB is subjective. If you do a 'true' WB at an event and then process all your images to that value then you often find all the character from the event disappears, effectively neutral white has no ambiance so dialing in a perceived WB value (the subjective part) will better replicate the feel of the event. Obviously the type and style of event will dictate how much ambiance you want to leave in.
Exactly my thought, in many cases, perfect white balance is nice, but in many cases, I prefer to balance colors to suit the way I saw them. I photographed a event last week where the director used a lot of colored lighting. White balance makes no sense.
I use the Colorchecker Passport for all event work with mixed lighting... make a DNG dual profile and use it for every shot in the same area.
Wehen I convert from Raw to Exif-Jpeg.I've just tried it with DPP 188.8.131.52 and the jpeg does have EXIF info.
The resulting Jpeg does not have exif.
Am I missing something? or this is a bug?
Ok so reading through these threads I did see one person say that this is a perfect lens for him because it will likely be relatively light and really wide and therefore perfect for using when hiking to get amazing landscape photos.
I assume that 11 is so much better than 14 that it will be better than using the samyang and that the person using the 11-24 is a much better hiker than I and not worried about tripping and breaking a 3K lens. Who else is this lens for? It does sound like people have been dissapointed with the 16-35 II. if this is just a better lens then it might replace that but I always felt that the 2.8 and 24-35 range were important for that lens for event photography.
I'd love to know what applications this lens is great for...It sounds like a professional landscape lens to me....the wide angle equivalent of the 400 2.8 for sports photographers. If that is the case and it performs as well I'm sure those folks will be thrilled and the rest of us will just gawk at their amazing photos.
However, that is a pretty niche group. The rest of us will settle for 17-40 or 16-35
Architecture - it's what pays my wages ;-)
Landscape I enjoy, but there's not (nearly enough) money in it (well, not doing what I like and where I live in the UK)
I have the 14mm and it's OK for many things where I want wide, but for architectural use I prefer the 17mm, shifted up/down if needed. Also the 8-15, with remapping the image geometry in varying ways.
It takes a fair bit of practice to be able to effectively use very wide angle, but it enables me to get some shots that I couldn't get in other ways. As I mentioned earlier, I'm looking forward to seeing how it expands what I can do - 14mm to 11mm may not sound much to some, but combined with the 17mm and 8-15, I'm just left waiting for a camera to replace my 1Ds 3 ;-)
I recently produced a new web site just for our architectural work and IIRC, over 50% of the images I used the TS-E17 (add in the TS-E24 and EF8-15 and it's probably over 90%)
I'd expect an 11-24 to contribute a fair bit to our bottom line ;-)
PS If anyone's curious, I was recently interviewed by X-Rite specifically about my architectural photography